Skip to main content

Full text of "The definition of intelligence in relation to modern methods of mental measurement"

See other formats




LIBRARY 

Walter E. Fernald 
State School 




■ 



Waverley, Massachusetts 

no . 4i£ - 13 



Vol. XXX PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW PUBLICATIONS ^^J^' ^ 

No. 4 »9£t 



Psychological Monographs 

EDITED BY 

JAMES ROWLAND ANGELL, New Haven, Conn. 
HOWARD C. WARREN, Princeton University (Review) 
JOHN B. WATSON, New York (/. of Exp. Psychol) 

SHEPHERD I. FRANZ, Govt. Hosp. for Insane (Bulletin) and 
MADISON BENTLEY, University of Illinois (Index) 



The Definition of Intelligence in Re- 
lation to Modern Methods of 
Mental Measurement 



BY 

J. LEROY STOCKTON, Ph.D. 

Vice President and Head of the Education Department, State 
Teachers' College, Santa Barbara, California 



PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW COMPANY 

PRINCETON, N. J. 
and LANCASTER, PA. 



AaKNTs: G. E. STECHERT & CO., London (2 Star Yard, Carey St., W. C.) 
Paris (16 rue de Conde) 



TABLE OF CONTENTS page 

Introduction i 

I. Necessity for establishing a clear psychological setting 

for the problem of intelligence i 

II. Recognition of types of research 2 

III. Relation of hypothesis to research 3 

IV. The objectives of the thesis as guided by the consid- 
erations mentioned above 4 

Chapter I. Factors in psychological setting for the problem 

of intelligence 5 

I. Psychological views of the existence and function of 

soul, consciousness, mind, mental states 5 

II. The modern theory of a unitary mind 10 

Chapter II. Current views of adaptation and mind in rela- 
tion to intelligence 13 

I. The confusion which these terms present 13 

II. Types of adaptation in relation to mind and intelli- 
gence 14 

A. Adaptation in the inorganic world 14 

B. Adaptation in the organic world 15 

1 . Primary mechanical types 15 

a. Tropic adaptation 15 

b. Reflex and instinctive adaptation 15 

c. Modified instinctive adaptation 17 

d. Associative adaptation 17 

in 



iv CONTENTS 

2. Purposive type 18 

a. Intentional adaptation 18 

3. Secondary mechanical type 21 

a. Reproductive (habitual) adaptation... 21 

III. The definition of intelligence 22 

IV. Summary of Chapter I 22 

Chapter III. Types of studies in the quantitative study of 

intelligence 24 

I. Measures, not of intelligence, but of factors found to 

to be correlated with intelligence 24 

A. Correlation of physical traits with intelligence 24 

B. Correlation of mental traits with intelligence. . 25 

II. Real measures of intelligence 26 

A. Measures of mechanically controlled intelligence 26 

1. Original types (unlearned) 26 

2. Learned types 27 

B. Measures of intentionally controlled intelligence 27 

C. Measures of reproductive intelligence 28 

Chapter IV. The fundamental nature of intentional adapta- 
tion 30 

I. The "common factor" in intelligence 30 

II. Existing evidences that purposive intelligence is condi- 
tioned by levels based upon an analysis of mind 34 

1 . The generally accepted idea that the abstract 

is "harder" than the concrete 34 

2. The popular, but contradictory, conception 
that pupils considered dull because they fail 
in abstract subjects, prove their intelligence 

by success in concrete subjects 34 

3. Courses of study in institutions for the 
feebleminded 35 

4. Clinical descriptions of feebleminded per- 
sons 35 

5. Evidence drawn from the construction and 
the application of certain intelligence tests 37 



CONTENTS v 

a. Illustrations from the Binet tests 37 

b. Illustrations from the De Sanctis tests 38 

c. Illustrations from material used by Pint- 
ner and Patterson in "A Scale of Per- 
formance Tests" 39 

d. Illustration from performance test ma- 
terial developed by Healy 51 

e. Illustrations from studies directed 
toward the determination of the type of 
mental function possessed by the feeble- 
minded 52 

f. Illustration from success and failure in 
abstract and concrete subjects of in- 
struction 54 

Chapter V. The fundamental nature of intentional adapta- 
tion, continued 58 

I. Original quantitative studies 58 

1. In upper school grades 58 

2. In lower school grades 83 

II. Conclusions 83 

Chapter VI. Modern methods of mental measurement 93 

I. The evolution of modern methods 93 

1. A summation of modern tendencies 93 

2. Some general side lights on the development 

of the modern view 98 

3. Certain minor and major views and studies 
in confirmation of the existence of a com- 
mon factor in intelligence 99 

II. Possible results of the theory upon modern methods 
of mental measurement 102 

1. Emphasis upon the value of the language 
test 103 

2. Tendency to the development of more diag- 
nostic scales of intelligence based upon the 



vi CONTENTS 

separate scaling of qualitative differences in 

the common factor 103 

3. Increased tendency to speculate upon the 
problem as to whether the development of 
intelligence ceases soon after adolescence. .105 

III. Summary 107 

Typical General References 109 



THE DEFINITION OF INTELLIGENCE IN RELATION 
TO MODERN METHODS OF MENTAL 
MEASUREMENT.* 



INTRODUCTION 



I. Necessity for Establishing a Clear Psychological 
Setting for the Problem of Intelligence. 

Probably all will agree that the problem of intelligence belongs 
in psychology. Naturally, therefore, one would at first thought 
feel justified in discussing intelligence in terms of mind, con- 
sciousness, and other popularly used psychological terms. There 
have been times in the history of psychology when this could have 
been done without raising any question; but even minor excur- 
sions into modern psychology show that the leaders in that field 
are fundamentally divided by different concepts and terminolo- 
gies. They do not agree as to what mind is. They do not even 
agree as to whether psychology should assume the existence of 
mind, or, if it exists, whether psychology should make any at- 
tempt to determine its nature. 

Hence the student of intelligence is forced to review current 
psychological theories and to decide as to the attitude which he, 
himself, shall take. Otherwise any conclusions to which he may 
come, and any arguments which he may base upon the conclu- 
sions, are likely to prove abortive, due to a mere misunder- 
standing of terms. 

The situation is similar to that raised by the ancient dispute 
as to whether there would be any sound at Niagara if there were 
no ear there to hear it. The argument must result in endless de- 
bate unless one stops to ask whether sound is to be defined in 

*A thesis submitted May, 1920, to the departments of Education (major) 
and Psychology (minor) of Stanford University, in partial fulfillment of the 
requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. 



2 JAMES LEROY STOCKTON 

terms of physics or in terms of psychology. This illustration 
merely points the observation that since the intelligence problem is 
at bottom a psychological problem, any attempt to deal with it 
constructively must use psychological terms with carefully con- 
sidered and denned meanings. Thus the later argument can be 
saved from becoming hopelessly at cross purposes. 

Two sources of confusion in modern psychological terminol- 
ogy are (i) the term mind or consciousness, and (2) faculties, 
or functions, of mind. It is desirable that the points of view 
concerning these be carefully discriminated, and definite ones 
selected. This is not to be done with the idea of settling the 
matter once for all; but rather with the idea that although the 
reader may disagree with the view chosen, he can at least follow 
the argument of this presentation without confusion. 

An attempt will therefore be made in Chapter I to analyze 
the current views of mind and of its functions, and later to locate 
the intelligence problem in relation to these views. 

II. Recognition of Types of Research. 

There was a time when what was known as psychological re- 
search was mainly speculation. One could sit down in seclusion, 
evolve theories, and record them as his contribution. The the- 
ories did not need to have much relation to evidence; and they 
were in fact not often anchored to anything in particular. They 
systematized themselves with reference to themselves, and re- 
mained essentially a closed circle. Then came the era of scien- 
tific experiment, and with it the demand that research cease to 
be speculative and become quantitative. It must observe, record, 
and systematize facts which had not up to that time been so 
handled by anyone else. It must make a genuine quantitative 
contribution to human knowledge. The demand for this quan- 
titative type of research did not carry with it an absolute ban 
upon philosophical theorizing ; but it did insist that theories must 
accord with facts, in so far as the pertinent facts were known; 
and that new quantitative researches should always be engaged 
in turning up additional facts, with which facts the theories must 
be kept in line. The real research lay in the development of the 
new facts. 



MODERN METHODS OF MENTAL MEASUREMENT 3 

Such is now the prevailing view. But it may be pointed out 
that after such research has proceeded to a certain point, its own 
success develops the necessity for another type. To make this 
clear one has only to call attention to the fact that as experi- 
ment after experiment piles up endless facts in a given field cer- 
tain complications inevitably arise. This is particularly the case 
in the rather intangible field of the social sciences. The results of 
some experiments confirm each other in whole or in part; some 
are mutually contradictory ; while some are difficult to bring into 
any kind of relation with others. 

When the mass of the material on a given problem has grown 
to large proportions, and still the solution seems as far away as 
ever, it is time to take account of stock. It is time to attempt to 
find in the tangle a general trend which may point the way to a 
more profitable line of attack. That is, research is needed which 
is a search for organization within the products of other re- 
searches. This type of supplementary research requires that a 
rather exhaustive study of the field be made; that efforts of dif- 
ferent investigators be brought into relation to each other and 
to principles involved; that irrelevant details be excluded and 
relevant ones emphasized; and that the whole be brought to a 
focus. 

III. The Relation of Hypothesis to Research. 

The research for organization among the products of unrelated 
researches furnishes the basis upon which extensions may be at- 
tempted. Such a study of conditions makes it possible to for- 
mulate a guess as to certain other things which are probably true, 
but which have not yet been adequately proved. This guess, 
controlled by a consideration of the investigations which have 
preceded, is an hypothesis. Its significance is, or should be, de- 
termined by the significance of the previous work, and by the 
skill with which such work has been probed and interpreted. 
To continue quantitative work indefinitely without subjecting it 
occasionally to such clearing-house methods as result in a clari- 
fied and consistent hypothesis is, to say the least, wasteful. But 



4 JAMES LEROY STOCKTON 

when the revised hypothesis has been arrived at, there then exists 
a logical demand for new quantitative work which shall put it 
to the severest test. 

IV. The Objectives of this Thesis as Guided by the 
Considerations Mentioned Above. 

A. To locate more definitely the problem of intelligence in re- 

lation to fundamental points of view in psychology. 

B. To use clearing-house methods of research upon the present 

situation with regard to intelligence in an attempt (a) to 
establish a definition of intelligence, (b) to discriminate 
types of intelligence, and (c) to discriminate a pivotal 
type. 

C. To further clarify the situation by relating existing quantita- 

tive studies to the types of intelligence. 

D. To develop an hypothesis concerning the fundamental na- 

ture of the pivotal type of intelligence; and to test this 
hypothesis by quantitative research. 

E. To apply the conclusions to a critical survey of modern 

methods of mental measurement. 



CHAPTER I 

Factors in a Psychological Setting for the 
Problem of Intelligence. 

/. Psychological views of the existence and function of soul, 
consciousness, mind, mental states. 

The "mind and body" controversy has been a lengthy one, and 
it is not yet ended. Early psychology was philosophical, meta- 
physical. It was a speculative study of a consciousness called 
the soul, whose existence no one questioned. Along with this 
metaphysical psychology, there naturally appeared an empirical 
psychology, based upon attempts to describe psychic phenomena 
through the aid of introspection. Metaphysical and empirical 
psychology were supplements of each other in that empirical 
psychology was largely guided by metaphysical views ; and meta- 
physical pschology, on its part, continually used empirical ma- 
terials. There arose a natural dualism, a contrast between soul 
(mind) and body (matter). Attempts to escape this dualism 
led, on the one hand, to the contention that matter was only an- 
other manifestation of spirit; or on the other hand to the con- 
tention that what was apparently spirit was only another mani- 
festation of matter. Thus there came about a division of 
psychological thinkers into spiritualistic monists, and material- 
istic monists. 

A hot-bed of discussion of these different points of view is 
found in the work of Huxley, Tyndall, Clifford, Romanes, etc. 
The main reason for the break between the old and new views lay 
in the growing scientific spirit, and in the conception of scientific 
law characteristic of that spirit. The belief that the world pro- 
cesses rest upon the law of cause and effect, coupled with the 
belief in the conservation of energy, made it seem impossible 
that any world of "mind" could "break in" upon a world of 
matter "locked up in mechanical causation", and change the 



6 JAMES LEROY STOCKTON 

cause and effect series. Such a breaking in would require the 
addition of some energy to that already existing in the world of 
matter, and so would controvert the law of conservation of 
energy. As philosophers the scientists might hold speculative 
views of such a possibility, but as scientists they could see no other 
answer to the dilemma than monism, either spiritualistic or 
materialistic. Moreover, with science avowedly dedicated to the 
study of facts which could be verified in the world of things, it 
is clear how the drift was toward materialistic monism and the 
elimination of the "soul" from scientific psychology. 

There continued, however, to be psychologists who were dual- 
ists, who discussed mind or consciousness, and who meant by it 
something the same as was meant by the metaphysical psycholo- 
gist's concept of the soul. They continued at least to conceive 
of a world of mind and a world of matter; and in spite of the 
scientific difficulties involved, they believed that the former did 
have something to do with certain changes which took place in 
the latter. They were forced to this view by their observation 
of the organism as an "adaptation system". They saw this or- 
ganism changing its behavior with reference to its environment. 
That is, they saw that the mechanical systems of prearranged in- 
stinctive response did not always run to their apparently inevit- 
able conclusion. Behavior did vary to suit circumstances. Some 
of this variation, or adaptation, could be explained mechanically 
by the conflict of mechanical systems or otherwise; but some of 
it could not. The psychologist, judging certain other things by 
his experience with himself, believed that adaptation sometimes 
came about through an effective mental agent acting as a real 
power of choice between possible systems of action. Thus in his 
judgment the systems did not always run freely to their mechani- 
cal conclusions. He conceived of a mind or consciousness whose 
specific function was to interfere in those situations which de- 
mand behavior for which mechanical systems are inadequate. 

But it was necessary to put forth a theory as to how this re- 
lationship between the world of mind and the world of matter 
was possible. There could be but two theories. Either there 
was direct interaction between the two worlds, or there was par- 



MODERN METHODS OF MENTAL MEASUREMENT 7 

allel action between them. Upon the theory of interaction the 
immaterial mental agent must leap the gap between it and the 
material world, and exert itself directly. This theory has not 
been very popular among the scientists, because it runs directly 
against the scientific difficulties already mentioned. 

Upon the theory of parallel action, however, the question was 
in a way pigeon-holed. It was admitted that the asserted gap 
between the material and the immaterial world does exist; that 
the human mind can not conceive of the immaterial as acting 
upon the material; and that, therefore, the gap can not be con- 
ceived as bridged. But it was asserted that one could conceive of 
happenings in the immaterial world corresponding to, or parallel 
with, happenings in the material world; and that it was not at 
all necessary for the psychologist to explain how this was pos- 
sible. It was only necessary to postulate that when something 
happened in one world, it was paralleled by something in the other 
world. It was not necessary to conceive that one happened be- 
cause of the other. The claim was merely that when there was 
a happening in one world, there was a parallel happening in the 
other. 

But even this statement of the case needed to be, and was 
qualified. Not every happening in the material world as repre- 
sented by the nervous system, crowned by the brain, is accom- 
panied (paralleled) by consciousness — by a happening in the 
mind. The stimulation must reach a certain portion of the ner- 
vous system — the cortex of the brain, and there must be a cer- 
tain intensity of neural action in this cortex before the limen is 
passed and the mental life involved. But given this sufficient in- 
tensity of neural activity in the cortex, (in the material world), 
then the theory holds that there is parallel activity in the mind 
(the immaterial world). 

But what about the power of the mind to break in upon, and 
to modify, the happenings in the material world of neural activ- 
ity? What about the ability of the mind to execute its purposes? 
Parallelism is still a sufficient answer. One does not need to 
think of the change as caused by the mind. He only needs to 
think of the change as accompanying the given mental state. 



8 JAMES LEROY STOCKTON 

The happenings in one world are conceived as so "set" or "tuned" 
with relation to the other world, that variation in one is accom- 
panied by variation in the other. It may even be that one is a 
mathematical function of the other; but even in that case the 
concept is one of mere concomitant, not causal, variation. If one 
uses the language of interaction, and speaks of the mind breaking 
in, it is only because such language is more direct and saves the 
circumlocution which would otherwise be necessary. 

In modern psychology, the so-called structuralists accept the 
parallelistic hypothesis, and so conceive the study of psychology 
in terms of the action of a nervous system paralleled under certain 
conditions by mind. They regard the organism as an adaptation 
system, and believe that mental changes accompany neural 
changes in the establishment of new adaptations for which the 
old mechanical systems are inadequate. They do not, however, 
make any attempt to tell how this occurs. They leave this ques- 
tion to philosophy, while they themselves study the nervous sys- 
tem in unexplained parallel relation to mind, and also try to ar- 
rive at the structure of mind through the aid of introspection 
checked up by the products of performance measured by labora- 
tory instruments of precision. 

This structural psychology was on its experimental side the 
child of the nineteenth century development of scientific physi- 
ology. But this trend toward scientific physiology and biology 
has also been responsible for the development of two other psy- 
chological points of view. The first of these is the functionalist 
view, and the second is the behaviorist view. Both regard the 
organism as an adaptation system ; both tend to speak in biological 
or neurological terms. Their work puts a strong emphasis upon 
the nervous system, upon stimulus, and response, neurons and 
neuron patterns made by prenatal bonds between neurons, or by 
new bonds resulting from experience. Over these neuron pat- 
terns plays the neural force in response to stimuli, and behavior 
is the result. 

The functionalist agrees with the structuralist in admitting the 
existence of mind, and in making free use of the terms mind, 
mental state, mental processes, etc. ; but his view is perhaps less 



MODERN METHODS OF MENTAL MEASUREMENT 9 

dualistic and more materialistic in that he looks upon mind as 
"the functioning of the brain". There is for him a mental cor- 
relate of the physical brain process, but that correlate is the mere 
process by means of which the brain performs its function. This 
process, being something different from the brain itself, gives 
mind a place, and relates the functionalist to the structuralist. 
But instead of being especially interested in the structure of mind, 
the functionalist is especially interested in the achievements of 
mind. He is interested in development, in organic evolution, in 
how the process has come to be what it is, and in what is its 
teleological (purposive) significance. So the structuralist and the 
functionalist are not necessarily different persons. Structuralism 
and functionalism are different points of view, focused upon dif- 
ferent aspects of the total psychological field. They may belong 
at different times to the same person. 

The behaviorist frankly puts mind out of consideration. He 
says that no one has proved or can prove that there is or is not a 
mind. Moreover, he says that for the study of psychology it 
doesn't make any difference. What is important in his opinion 
is behavior, and the possibility of the prediction of behavior, 
through the study of the nervous system, its original neuron 
patterns, and the formation of new patterns through experience. 
Hence he voluntarily relinquishes the study of mind in favor of 
the study of behavior explained by a nervous system operating 
by mechanical, biological law. Behavior counts ; it is tangible. It 
can be objectively measured, is entirely free from metaphysical 
speculation, and is therefore the real subject matter for science. 

There is no doubt that there is a place for this view of the 
behaviorist. There are certain psychological problems which 
can be attacked only on the basis of objective data, and this fact 
gives the behaviorist his field. But again it would seem that it is 
a part, only, of the total field, cut off by the limitations of a cer- 
tain view which may be taken by any psychologist at any time. 
To regard it is an exclusive and all-embracing view, and so to 
give up the conception of mind as a directive agent, would seem 
to make the organism a mere automaton at the mercy of external 
influences. Certain psychologists are not willing to do this. 



io JAMES LEROY STOCKTON 

They feel that the automaton theory is outworn, and that man, at 
least to a certain extent, can exercise a power of initiative and 
thus influence his destiny through purposeful choice between re- 
sponses. They feel that the prediction of behavior must be very 
incomplete without a study of this mind which has the power 
to vary behavior through deliberate choice. Thus they feel that 
to make psychology purely a study of organic behavior without 
raising the question of a directing mind is almost or quite to make 
it a study of biology or neurology, it is to them, in a sense, 
psychology with the psychology left out. 

Thus it is clear that if one is to talk about intelligence as a 
psychological phenomenon, he must choose a definite point of 
view, especially with regard to the mooted mind or conscious- 
ness. This point of view, it goes without saying, need not be 
exclusively structural, functional, or behavioristic. 

The view here taken will agree with the tendency of modern 
psychologists of all schools to drop the use of the word conscious- 
ness in favor of the word mind, or of the expression mental 
state, since consciousness sometimes carries with it a connotation 
more philosophical than scientific. There will, however, be dis- 
agreement with some psychologists in that ( i ) it will be assumed 
that mind does exist coextensive with a certain intensity of neural 
activity in the cortex, and (2) in that the parallelistic hypothesis 
will be accepted, but for convenience the language of interaction 
will be used. The specific function of mind will therefore be 
conceived as that of breaking in upon the mechanical causation of 
mechanical systems of response, thus making itself felt in 
changed behavior. 

77. The modern theory of a unitary mind. 

The assumption that mind exists, and at times exercises a di- 
rective power over behavior, has been accepted. Another step 
may be taken through the medium of a discussion of mental 
"faculties". The older metaphysical psychology, in its attempt 
to analyze the soul, naturally discriminated such faculties (func- 
tions) as sensation, perception, memory, imagination, etc. Even 
the most modern parallelistic hypothesis must be carefully safe- 



MODERN METHODS OF MENTAL MEASUREMENT n 

guarded or it falls into the same trap. The very attempt to dif- 
ferentiate between brain and mind is conducive to the difficulty. 
One thinks of neural activity in the cortex, and of a gradually 
increasing intensity in this activity. Perhaps it is a neural activ- 
ity stimulated by light. When the intensity passes a certain limit 
the brain activity is paralleled by the simplest possible mental 
activity. This simplest possible mental state is given the name 
sensation. It becomes immediately natural to say that the mind 
has a faculty of registering sensations, and to discuss sensation 
as a mental faculty. 

As more and more stimuli bent upon the end organs, raise the 
intensity of neural activity in the brain, and are paralleled by 
more and more sensations, immediate sensations merge with the 
associated past sensations into percepts. This gives the mind a 
faculty of perception. Then the power to bring back to mind the 
image of the thing itself is focused upon. Recognized images 
are responsible for a faculty of memory ; vivified and reconstruct- 
ed images, for a faculty of imagination ; images used as symbols 
of meaning, for a faculty of ideation ; and the relating of these 
images, for a faculty of thinking. 

The difficulty with this scheme does not lie so much in the con- 
ception of the "faculties" as it does in the emphasis upon the in- 
dependence of the faculties in action, and the correlated emphasis 
upon their ability to take training. The view was naturally 
evolved that through the training of any particular faculty a 
particular kind of power could be stored up and remain ready to 
be drawn upon for future use. Specific memory power, specific 
thinking power, etc., could thus be put in "cold storage" as it 
were, for a season when they might be needed. 

Modern psychology, however, for sufficient reasons which do 
not need to be detailed here, has largely discarded the faculty 
idea, together with much of its attendant storage or "reservoir" 
theory. Some of the faculty names are preserved, because they 
express something which only the names can compass ; but, never- 
theless, mind, to the modern psychologist, is not cut up into sep- 
arate parts, and does not act in separate parts. Mind acts as a 
whole, as a unit. When there is mental activity, it is activity of 



12 JAMES LEROY STOCKTON 

the whole mind — of a unitary mind. But this unitary mind can 
be focused in various directions. That is, one may speak of 
memory as a typical process of psychical activity. Mind as a 
whole, acts in this form. Recall is the main consideration, and 
is in the foreground ; but all of the rest of the mind is in the back- 
ground contributing its part. An analogy may be found in the 
one-celled organism, the amoeba, which can wrap a fold of its 
body about a minute particle of food, use the enclosing sack as a 
stomach, and digest the food. The focus is toward the sac ; the 
form of activity is digestion ; but all the amoeba body behind the 
sac is contributing its share to the process. The digestive func- 
tion is a function ; but not a function separate and independent in 
action. To carry the illustration a little further, the amoeba can 
also, in its attempts at locomotion, put forth a "foot" in any 
direction. Thus the body is focused anew in a new form of activ- 
ity; but the foot is not separate and independent. It is, as it 
were, only a sign of the complete and unified action of the whole. 
It is only in some such sense that terms such as sensation, 
memory, imagination, etc., are used in modern psychology. 
When neural activity of sufficient intensity occurs in the brain it 
is accompanied by sensation in the mind. But it is to be par- 
ticularly remembered that this means just what it says. The 
sensation is in the mind so definitely as to be really but a name 
for a focus of the total mind. It is a sign of the complete and 
unified activity of this focused total mind. It is in such a sense, 
only, that use is made in this thesis of the term mental function, 
or of the specific names of specific functions. 



CHAPTER II 

Current Views of Adaptation and Mind in Relation 

to Intelligence. 

/. The confusion which these terms present. 

Psychologists are agreed upon regarding the organism as an 
adaptation system. There is a difference of opinion about the 
role played by mind ; but the assumption is here made that mind 
exists, and that it is, at times, a directive agent in adaptation. 
What about the relation of the terms adaptation and mind to the 
term intelligence? Current usage is very loose, and the result is 
confusion which can be cleared up only by first finding some com- 
mon ground upon which all views meet, and then analyzing the 
difficulties beyond that point. The common ground is found in 
the fact that all usage agrees in placing the problems of intelli- 
gence within the problem of adaptation. 

Further analysis, however, shows that there are writers who 
are willing to call all adaptation intelligent. They think of in- 
telligence as belonging to the organic as opposed to the inorganic; 
and they think of the organic as able to adapt itself to environ- 
ment, while the inorganic can not. Possibly some who passively 
accept this point of view have not even stopped to consider that 
the organic includes vegetable as well as animal organisms, and 
that vegetable organisms do make adaptations to environment. 
If this were called to their attention they would probably readily 
agree that in saying that the organic has intelligence, and the 
inorganic has not, they had meant to contrast only animal organ- 
isms with the inorganic. 

There is a class of persons, however, who intentionally include 
both animal and vegetable organisms when they contrast the or- 
ganic and the inorganic, and who are willing to call both animal 
and vegetable organisms intelligent, because of the power of 
adaptation which they possess. That is, some persons do inten- 



14 JAMES LEROY STOCKTON 

tionally claim that ability to make adaptations is identical with 
intelligence. 

The source of the confusion lies in the failure to realize that 
adaptation is such a broad term that it must be split up into a 
number of different types of adaptation. Unless these types are 
discriminated in thought and terminology, those who discuss the 
subject are not speaking the same language because they are not 
giving the same connotation to the terms which they use. Hence 
the discrimination of adaptation types is the next problem. 

II. Types of adaptation in relation to mind and intelligence. 

A. ADAPTATION IN THE INORGANIC WORLD. 

There is a use of the word which permits it to apply to the in- 
organic. Cliffs and other earth contours "are adapted to environ- 
ment' ' when they yield to weathering by wind and water. Iron 
rails are adapted to environment when they expand or contract 
because of change of temperature. But these bodies are adapted 
to the environment ; they do not adapt themselves. They remain 
passive, and are mechanically adjusted through the play of ex- 
ternal agencies. Given approximately the same conditions, the 
variations which occur tend to be predetermined, and are there- 
fore highly predictable. The body exhibits no spontaneity. 
There is no active, inner, selective factor which interferes to 
make the prediction of variation uncertain. 

Now the idea of intelligence, no matter how else limited, has 
never failed to carry with it the assumption that, to some degree 
at least, the possessor is able to exercise a relatively non-predic- 
table selective inner influence upon its own destiny. Hence there 
is no current reputable usage of the term intelligence which will 
permit its application to the inorganic. This is so self-evident 
that it would be a waste of words to say it, if it were not for 
the slip which sometimes identifies intelligence with adaptation. 
The inorganic does, in a sense, have adaptation. It does not have 
intelligence. Hence intelligence cannot be used as synonymous 
with adaptation without opening the door to confusion. Accord- 
ingly, in organizing the uses of the term adaptation, this thesis 



MODERN METHODS OF MENTAL MEASUREMENT 15 

will distinguish between inorganic and organic adaptation, and 
will deny intelligence to the inorganic. 

B. ADAPTATION IN THE ORGANIC WORLD. 

I. Primary mechanical types. 

a. Tropic adaptation. — There is a difference of opinion as to 
where to draw the line between tropism and real reflex or instinc- 
tive acts. The view here taken will be that which limits tropism 
to those organisms which lack a differentiated nervous system.* 
Such primitive organisms possess a generally diffused sensitive- 
ness of the total protoplasmic mass. This sensitiveness promotes 
simple adaptation, but these adaptations have much of the same 
invariable (and therefore predictable) character as do the adap- 
tations in the organic world. Water, light, and heat have been 
spoken of as having certain mechanical effects upon inorganic 
substances. They have also a total mechanical effect upon or- 
ganic tissue, and through this effect may promote adapta- 
tions. But again, the body (even though it be organic) is 
adapted to the environment, it does not adapt itself. Again 
there is no active, inner, selective factor, no initiative, which in- 
terferes to make the prediction of variation uncertain. Hence in 
one sense there is no variation at all, and certainly no intelligence. 

b. Reflex and instinctive adaptation. — In inorganic adaptations 
and in tropism there is assumed to be no intelligence, since it is 
conceived that in them the adjustments lack spontaneity, and are 
practically predictable. The body is at the mercy of its own ma- 
terial composition as acted upon by external agencies. But 
with instinctive adaptation it is different. Instinct utilizes a dif- 
ferentiated nervous system and succeeds in being less rigid, less 
predictable, and more selective, though the selection occurs in a 
mechanical manner. 

Herrick says that theoretically the simplest organized nervous 
response is the reflex which depends upon merely the simplest re- 

* Whether or not this includes plant life is a somewhat mooted question ; 
but the essential facts of the present discussion will not be unfavorably af- 
fected if this question is dropped, and the matter discussed wholly from 
the point of view of the animal organism. 



18 JAMES LEROY STOCKTON 

noted, no new neuron systems are formed. There is often, how- 
ever, an excess neural discharge. This comes especially in times 
of emotional excitement. Many random movements are then 
made as the excess discharge forces itself through new channels. 
If discharge through a new channel brings satisfaction, the new 
movement is associated with it, and this movement comes more 
certainly the next time. Thus gradually new neuron patterns 
are formed and behavior is varied ; problems are solved ; learning 
takes place. This learning utilizes the neural-switchboard, and 
shoots upward to a sensory-motor level above the level of the 
mere reflex arc; but it does not go high enough to get into the 
level of intentional control. It is at first a chance choice due to 
mechanical spontaneity, and it is continued as a mere mechanical 
association with a sense of well-being. 

Even rote learning of a song or other school exercise may 
occur in the way just described; and many common manners and 
customs also have the same origin. The problem is not inten- 
tionally or logically attacked ; but repetition, plus a favorable af- 
fection, blocks out the new pathways, and establishes the new 
neuron bonds or patterns. It is only trial and error learning, or 
incidental learning. Yet the creature is not merely adapted to 
its environment. It adapts itself, although in a mechanical 
manner. Therefore the word intelligence is applicable if the act 
is realized to be an example of mechanically controlled intelli- 
gence. Mind, if present at all, is still not a directive agent. In 
popular terms, a mechanical habit has been mechanically formed. 
This type of adaptation is the least predictable type thus for 
discussed. 

2. Purposive Type. 

a. Intentional adaptation. — There have been discussed two 
types of unintelligent adaptation: (a) the inorganic adaptation; 
and (b) tropism. There have also been discussed three types of 
limited-intelligent adaptation: (a) original instinctive adapta- 
tion; (b) modified instinctive adaptation; and (c) associative 
adaptation. But there comes a time in the life of an organism 
when none of these types of adaptation can meet the new situation 



MODERN METHODS OF MENTAL MEASUREMENT 19 

which is presented. When such a time appears, the organism 
suffers, or even perishes, unless it is an organism possessing a 
mind which can break in to solve its problem by influencing the 
nervous currents to the formation of new neuron patterns neces- 
sary to a new adjustment intentionally chosen out of the possibili- 
ties which the situation presents. 

The theory involved in the interference of mind in the forma- 
tion of new systems of response has already been briefly out- 
lined. It is that there must be involved a certain grade of refine- 
ment of the nervous structure found only in the cortex, and a 
certain intensity of the neural activity in the cortex, before the 
limen is passed and the mental life is able to function. That is to 
say, that mind is coextensive with (1) a certain intensity of 
neural activity, and (2) in certain structures. One of these con- 
ditions alone is not enough. Mere intensity in the lower struc- 
tures, or mere activity in the cortex, must give place to a certain 
intensity in the cortex before the limen is passed. (But it is 
conceivable that cortical activity which is not intense enough to 
pass the limen may have an indirect mechanical influence upon 
mind, through its influence upon the cortex. ) 

Below the limen, therefore, is mechanically controlled adap- 
tation. The function of this intentional activity of mind is to 
meet those emergencies in which the mechanical systems break 
down. Asuming that mind is able to do this, a certain analysis 
may be made of the method. This analysis cannot fail to be 
rather rigid and dogmatic, but it is not intended to be inflexible. 
All discussion of types must attempt to make the type specific as 
if it stood out sharply by itself, even though in reality it grades 
imperceptibly into adjacent types. Purposive adaptation does 
not always appear unadulterated; but, theoretically, in its pure 
form, it presents the following named elements, each one of which 
is to be understood as intentionally carried out: 

1. Focus upon possibilities; in other words, concentration, or 
attention. 

2. Pause; the mechanical currents must be temporarily in- 
hibited. 



20 JAMES LEROY STOCKTON 

3. Selective activity; significant elements in present and past 
situations must be abstracted and held by themselves. 

4. Relating of the selected elements.* 

5. Action upon the relationships discovered. 

When the literature is examined in the next section it will be 
found that the modern tendency is to reserve the term intelli- 
gnce for this type of adjustment, or adaptation, which solves prob- 
lems by the steps just enumerated. However, if one has de- 
cided to use the expression "mechanically controlled intelligence" 
for unintentional adjustments, he can use a qualifying term for 
these directed adaptations, and call them "intentionally controlled 
intelligence. " They may also be called productive intention- 
ally controlled intelligence, since they really produce new connec- 
tions, and new behavior. 

This same type of adaptation has other names such as inten- 
tional learning and thinking. It represents the height of power 
of the active, inner, selective factor which produces non-predic- 
table variation. It is the means by which the organism escapes 
being merely adapted to its environment, and succeeds in adapt- 
ing itself to the environment, or in adapting the environment to 
itself. It is the open door to controlled progress. 

Throughout this thesis therefore there will be made an at- 
tempt to separate the various aspects of mechanically controlled 
adaptation from intentionally controlled adaptation. The follow- 
ing list of terms wll help to insure this separation : 

Inorganic adaptation (unintelligent). 
Organic tropic adaptation (unintelligent). 
Non-productive mechanically controlled intelligence. 

a. Original instinctive adaptation. 
Productive mechanically controlled intelligence. 

a. Modified instinctive adaptation. 

b. Associative adaptation. 

Productive intentionally controlled intelligence. 

*What kinds of relationships is the mind able to conceive? Cause and 
effect, time, space, genus-species, part-whole, likeness and difference; how 
many are there to be found? Can all be reduced to one; viz., similarity? 
Time relationships are gathered because they are similar; so with place 
relationships, etc. Then ability to relate becomes just that ability which is 
able to recognize in present experience an element similar to one belonging 
to a past experience. 



MODERN METHODS OF MENTAL MEASUREMENT 21 

3. Secondary mechanical type. 

a. Reproductive (habitual) adaptation. — It is well known that 
an act which once required the immediate, purposive supervision 
of mind, may, through repetition and other circumstances, fall 
back to be performed by new-formed mechanical-neural systems. 
Mind is thus released for new ventures in new fields. The act 
that is thus relegated to mechanical systems is no longer an in- 
telligent act in the sense of intentionally controlled intelligence. 
It is intentionally controlled intelligence only in so far as it has 
not been so relegated. The process of relegation consists in a 
gradual fading away, out of the focus of mind into the fringe. 
The act thus becomes more and more predictable, and finally 
drops entirely below the limen into the mechanical, the unintel- 
ligent, or the mechanical-intelligent, if one wishes to use this 
term. It becomes habit, and, for the purposes of this discus- 
sion, belongs with the mechanical adaptations. In this connec- 
tion it can, through mechanical conflict with other mechanical 
systems, bring about mechanical learning, just as in the already 
discussed conflict of two original mechanical systems. 

But this act which was once intentionally controlled, and has 
now become mechanical, has not at all the same significance as the 
original mechanical. It stands not only for mechanism, but it 
stands also as evidence of a former exercise of intentionally con- 
trolled intelligence. It can be brought back into the intentional ; 
and it could not have been performed at all without the original 
exercise of the intentional. It is, therefore, secondary evidence of 
intentionally controlled intelligence, since in all probability, the 
formerly exercised power still persists in the organism. And this 
secondary evidence often has an importance nearly or quite equal 
to the primary evidence afforded by a new adaptation itself. 

This secondary evidence of intentionally controlled intelli- 
gence, this giving back of something learned at a previous time, 
may be called pedagogical intelligence, or reproductive intelli- 
gence. It is the diary of the intentionally controlled intelligence. 



22 JAMES LEROY STOCKTON 

III. The definition of intelligence. 

It has been customary among students of intelligence to say 
that it is not known what intelligence is. The view taken here is 
that what has been meant is that types of intelligence have not 
been discriminated, or that the fundamental nature of intelligence 
has not been known ; but that it has been known what intelligence 
is, and that the preceding discussion has shown what it is. To 
accomplish this end did not require experimentation, but only an 
examination of the usage of the word. For any term has content 
only through usage, and that usage may give it any content what- 
ever. It has been shown that the usage of the word intelligence 
has been rather definite, except that types of intelligence have been 
allowed to overlap. It follows that the definition of intelligence 
should be broad enough to include all types admitted by usage, 
and that supplementary definitions of the individual types should 
be given. The broad and all-inclusive definition may be worded 
as follows: 

An organism is intelligent when it possesses the ability 
to influence its destiny through the utilization of an 
inner, active, non-predictable, selective factor which 
chooses on the basis of similarity. 

This definition, since it includes mechanical choice, does allow 
intelligence to practically all animal organisms; and that is just 
what some writers of importance wish to do. If, however, one 
wishes to distinguish intentionally controlled intelligence as a 
pivotal type (and this is the only type which many writers rec- 
ognize) he must make a more qualified definition as follows : 

AN ORGANISM HAS INTENTIONALLY CONTROLLED INTELLI- 
GENCE WHEN IT POSSESSES THE ABILITY TO INFLUENCE ITS DES- 
TINY THROUGH THE INTENTIONAL UTILIZATION OF AN INNER, 
ACTIVE, NON-PREDICTABLE, SELECTIVE FACTOR TO EFFECT A SPE- 
CIFIC PURPOSE THROUGH INTENTIONAL CHOICE BASED UPON SIMI- 
LARITIES. 

IV. Summary of Chapter II. 

i. It is agreed that the problem of intelligence is within the 
problem of adaptation. 



MODERN METHODS OF MENTAL MEASUREMENT 23 

2. But adaptation is in no sense intelligent until a body utilizes 
an inner, active, non-predictable, selective factor to influence its 
destiny. Hence inorganic adaptations, and even organic tro- 
pisms, are not intelligent. 

3. Organized response may be mechanically controlled as in 
(a) original instinctive adaptation; (b) modified instinctive 
adaptation; (c) associative adaptation. If these are regarded as 
intelligent at all, it can only be in a limited sense, and they should 
be known as mechanically controlled intelligence. 

4. Organized response may be intentionally controlled. This 
is the type of adaptation generally recognized as intelligent. It 
is intentionally controlled intelligence in contrast to the mechani- 
cal control. Its variation is relatively non-predictable. 

5. Intentionally controlled intelligence may lapse into mechan- 
ism, and become a secondary mechanical type, valuable as the 
diary of the intentionally controlled intelligence. 

6. Intelligence may, therefore, be defined as in Section III of 
this chapter. 



CHAPTER III 

Types of Studies in the Quantitative Determination 

of Intelligence. 

The lack of discrimination between the types of adaptation 
discussed in the last chapter, has naturally encouraged looseness 
in discrimination between types of experimental studies of intelli- 
gence. There is also an added difficulty arising from the ten- 
dency to claim that one has measured intelligence when, in reality, 
he has not done so at all, but has only measured some trait cor- 
related with intelligence. These points will be covered very brief- 
ly in the present chapter, the latter being taken up first. 

/. Measures, not of intelligence, but of factors found to be 
correlated with intelligence. 

a. correlation of physical traits with intelligence. 

If it is found that intelligence usually goes with a head of a 
certain width or length, then the measuring of the heads of a 
group of people may give an insight into* the probable amount of 
intelligence in the group. But, in spite of this, it cannot then be 
truthfully said that the intelligence has been measured. The 
presence of intelligence has only been inferred as a result of the 
head measurements. In one sense the result is the same no matter 
how it is stated; but, if, in such a case, intelligence is really 
thought of as measured, false ideas as to the true nature of in- 
telligence are fostered. 

Good examples of the measurement of physical traits correlated 
with intelligence are found in the early part of the first volume 
of Whipple's "Manual of Mental and Physical Tests". First are 
certain anthropometric measures, such as have often been used in 
the identification of criminals, and in the relation of growth to 
disease, etc. Definite degrees of these traits have also been found 



MODERN METHODS OF MENTAL MEASUREMENT 25 

usually to be associated with intelligence, and the presence of the 
given degree of the trait therefore leads to the inference of the 
presence of intelligence. Examples of such measurements are 
those of height (standing and sitting), weight, diameter of skull, 
girth of skull, etc. In like manner are utilized measures of vital 
capacity, strength of grip, physical fatigue, quickness of move- 
ment, accuracy of movement, and involuntary movement. The 
same thing also applies to measures of sensory defect due to 
physical conditions. Deafness, long- and short-sightedness, color- 
blindness, control of eye muscles, and such may be cited as ex- 
amples. Any one of these traits may be found in varying degrees 
of correlation with intelligence or lack of intelligence. To meas- 
ure the trait may lead to results which justify the assumption that 
intelligence will be found along with it ; but it does not determine 
the degree of the intelligence either for the group or for the indi- 
vidual. 

B. CORRELATION OF MENTAL TRAITS WITH INTELLIGENCE. 

Studies which merely show that amount of perception, memory, 
etc., is correlated with intelligence, are not measures of intelli- 
gence itself. Again it will prevent confusion concerning the true 
nature of intelligence if such studies can be set off by themselves 
as the studies of physical traits have been. 

It is common to think of a person of good perceptive power, 
good memory power, etc., as an intelligent person. But it has 
been repeatedly proved that even the feebleminded may possess 
these powers. The difficulty lies in the identification of (1) the 
admitted possession of the trait, with (2) the ability to manipu- 
late the trait in the service of non-predictable variation. Per- 
cepts and memories are bundles of relationships. A person is not 
born with them. Hence their building up may be called varia- 
tion; but, in the main it is a predictable variation. There is a 
natural course of events on the basis of which one could, if he 
knew all the circumstances, predict the formation of percepts, 
memories, etc., just as he could under similar circumstance pre- 
dict the crystallization of steel under shock. This predictable 
variation, the main objective of the extreme "Behaviorist", is not 



CHAPTER III 

Types of Studies in the Quantitative Determination 

of Intelligence. 

The lack of discrimination between the types of adaptation 
discussed in the last chapter, has naturally encouraged looseness 
in discrimination between types of experimental studies of intelli- 
gence. There is also an added difficulty arising from the ten- 
dency to claim that one has measured intelligence when, in reality, 
he has not done so at all, but has only measured some trait cor- 
related with intelligence. These points will be covered very brief- 
ly in the present chapter, the latter being taken up first. 

7". Measures, not of intelligence, but of factors found to be 
correlated with intelligence. 

A. CORRELATION OF PHYSICAL TRAITS WITH INTELLIGENCE. 

If it is found that intelligence usually goes with a head of a 
certain width or length, then the measuring of the heads of a 
group of people may give an insight into the probable amount of 
intelligence in the group. But, in spite of this, it cannot then be 
truthfully said that the intelligence has been measured. The 
presence of intelligence has only been inferred as a result of the 
head measurements. In one sense the result is the same no matter 
how it is stated; but, if, in such a case, intelligence is really 
thought of as measured, false ideas as to the true nature of in- 
telligence are fostered. 

Good examples of the measurement of physical traits correlated 
with intelligence are found in the early part of the first volume 
of Whipple's "Manual of Mental and Physical Tests". First are 
certain anthropometric measures, such as have often been used in 
the identification of criminals, and in the relation of growth to 
disease, etc. Definite degrees of these traits have also been found 



MODERN METHODS OF MENTAL MEASUREMENT 25 

usually to be associated with intelligence, and the presence of the 
given degree of the trait therefore leads to the inference of the 
presence of intelligence. Examples of such measurements are 
those of height (standing and sitting), weight, diameter of skull, 
girth of skull, etc. In like manner are utilized measures of vital 
capacity, strength of grip, physical fatigue, quickness of move- 
ment, accuracy of movement, and involuntary movement. The 
same thing also applies to measures of sensory defect due to 
physical conditions. Deafness, long- and short-sightedness, color- 
blindness, control of eye muscles, and such may be cited as ex- 
amples. Any one of these traits may be found in varying degrees 
of correlation with intelligence or lack of intelligence. To meas- 
ure the trait may lead to results which justify the assumption that 
intelligence will be found along with it; but it does not determine 
the degree of the intelligence either for the group or for the indi- 
vidual. 

B. CORRELATION OF MENTAL TRAITS WITH INTELLIGENCE. 

Studies which merely show that amount of perception, memory, 
etc., is correlated with intelligence, are not measures of intelli- 
gence itself. Again it will prevent confusion concerning the true 
nature of intelligence if such studies can be set off by themselves 
as the studies of physical traits have been. 

It is common to think of a person of good perceptive power, 
good memory power, etc., as an intelligent person. But it has 
been repeatedly proved that even the feebleminded may possess 
these powers. The difficulty lies in the identification of (1) the 
admitted possession of the trait, with (2) the ability to manipu- 
late the trait in the service of non-predictable variation. Per- 
cepts and memories are bundles of relationships. A person is not 
born with them. Hence their building up may be called varia- 
tion; but, in the main it is a predictable variation. There is a 
natural course of events on the basis of which one could, if he 
knew all the circumstances, predict the formation of percepts, 
memories, etc., just as he could under similar circumstance pre- 
dict the crystallization of steel under shock. This predictable 
variation, the main objective of the extreme "Behaviorist", is not 



26 JAMES LEROY STOCKTON 

intelligence. Intelligence is not present until mental element 
(functions) are, either mechanically or intentionally, brougli 
into relationships which result in non-predictable variation. Th 
real measure of intelligence measures spontaneity or initiative. ] 
is true that in the formation of percepts, etc., there may have bee 
present in a particular case some of this initiative (mechanical o 
intentional) ; but much of the process is likely to have been o 
the predictable kind ; and one does not with certainty get at th 
spontaneity, therefore, through the measure of the function. Th 
functions are prerequisite to intelligence, since the initiative ca 
not come if the functions are lacking. But the functions may b 
measurement be found in varying amounts, and yet intelligence 
non-predictable variation, be lacking, or at least unproved becaus 
it is obscured by the excess of predictable variation with which i 
is associated. If one wishes a reliable measure of intelligence h 
tests not the amount of the function, but the amount of initiativ 
which the creature can produce through the discovery and utiliza 
tion of relationships between the functions. 

Examples of quantitative measures of sensation are the com 
mon tests of visual acuity (Whipple, Test 14), and auditor; 
acuity (Whipple, Test 18), etc.; of perception, are the commoi 
tachistoscopic tests of range of visual attention (Whipple, Tes 
24), and visual apprehension (Whipple, Test 25), etc.; of rot 
memory, (Whipple, Test 38), etc. One may find these an 
other mental abilities correlated with intelligence ; but the meas 
urement of them is not a measurement of intelligence itself. 

77. Real measures of intelligence. 

A. MEASURES OF MECHANICALLY CONTROLLED INTELLIGENCE 

I. Original types (unlearned). 

Here belong all those studies of endowment which aim t< 
achieve a knowledge of the amount of a creature's orginal an< 
unlearned ability to solve problems, e.g., non-predictable varia 
tions in the nest building of birds, in the migration of species, 11 
the food habits of wild mice, etc. The variations here studied 
however, are those which come within an original range of nativ 



MODERN METHODS OF MENTAL MEASUREMENT 27 

ability, and not those which supplant or augment original abili- 
ties. They are discussed in the former chapter under the head of 

original instinctive adaptation. 

2. Learned types. 

These are the ones previously discussed as modified instinctive 
adaptations and associative adaptations. They represent real 
non-predictable variation, but it is still of the mechanically con- 
trolled type. The field has been much exploited, and illustra- 
tions are numerous and well-known. Typical ones are the ani- 
mal intelligence experiments of Lloyd Morgan, Thorndike, 
Yerkes, and Watson. All experiments in unintentional, associa- 
tive, learning, or incidental learning in either human beings or 
animals belong here. 

It may be said in passing that if the distinction between me- 
chanically controlled intelligence and intentionally controlled in- 
telligence were kept well in mind, much light would be thrown 
upon the dispute as to whether or not animals are intelligent. 
Animals do solve problems, but the consensus of opinion is that 
they solve them either through the small latitude of non-predict- 
able variation allowed by instinct, or they solve them through 
conflict of instincts or through association. They do not solve 
them through working out of a deliberately chosen purpose based 
upon relationships intentionally sought between mental elements. 
From this point of view, animals have mechanically controlled 
intelligence, but not intentionally controlled intelligence. 

B. MEASURES OF INTENTIONALLY CONTROLLED INTELLIGENCE. 

Illustrations of intentionally controlled intelligence must be 
those featuring immediate and intentional problem solving. 
There can be included no primarily mechanical associative or 
instinctive processes. A new situation presents itself and is pur- 
posively attacked and solved through the discovery of new rela- 
tionships. Cats get out of cages through mechanically controlled 
intelligence. A normal human being in the same situation uses 
intentionally controlled intelligence, and attempts purposively to 



28 JAMES LEROY STOCKTON 

apply past experience to the present situation, find the similari- 
ties between the past and present, and so find the way out. 

Some of the best developed modern single measure of inten- 
tionally controlled intelligence are certain tests of intentional 
sensory discrimination, certain picture-completion and other per- 
formance tests, the synonym-antonym test, the analogies, etc. As 
has already been said, this type of intentionally controlled adapta- 
tion is the only type that many writers are now willing to call 
intelligence; but it can do no harm to call mechanical phases of 
adaptation mechanically controlled intelligence, if mechanically 
controlled intelligence is definitely discriminated as a type. 

C. MEASURES OF REPRODUCTIVE INTELLIGENCE. 

The human mind is so constituted that after it has solved a 
problem once or several times, the solution becomes mechanical. 
At first there is required active attention and intention; later 
attention becomes what has been called secondary passive, inten- 
tion drops out, and the act performs itself. It becomes repro- 
ductive intelligence because it reproduces mechanically the acts 
of the intentionally controlled intelligence. Many persons have 
not been willing to call pedagogical tests intelligence tests. It is 
true that a test in geography or history may require merely the 
mechanical reproduction of something previously learned; but 
the person may, and probably did originally, pick up much of 
the knowledge intentionally. And psychologists are more and 
more coming to believe that measures which determine how much 
a person has intentionally achieved through a term of years are 
often more significant than those measures which only find out 
his present achievement through a period of an hour more or 
less. So psychologists are not nearly so much afraid as they used 
to be of the pedagogical measurement regarded as an intelli- 
gence measurement. There is, however, a fundamental diffi- 
culty in the fact that one seldom is able to tell exactly how much 
of the reproduced material was originally acquired mechanically, 
and how much was acquired intentionally. Hence one cannot tell 
how much credit to assign to mechanically controlled intelli- 



MODERN METHODS OF MENTAL MEASUREMENT 29 

gence, and how much to assign to intentionally controlled intelli- 
gence. 

Illustrations of pedagogical (reproductive intelligence) meas- 
ures are those of arithmetical fundamentals such as the Courtis, 
series A and B ; arithmetical reasoning, such as the Stone Reason- 
ing Test; reading scales, such as the Kansas standardized read- 
ing tests; handwriting scales, such as the Thorndike scale and 
the Ayres scale; and the composition scales, such as the Hillegas 
scale, the Harvard-Newton scale, and the Willing scale. In 
fact one now finds such scales for practically every subject of 
instruction. 



CHAPTER IV 

The Fundamental Nature of Intentional Adaptation. 

/. The "common factor" in intelligence. 

Certain types of adaptation have been discriminated in previous 
chapters. Evolutionary tendencies in modern thought would 
naturally lead one to suspect a development from one type to 
another, but it is not the intention to pursue that idea at this 
time. It is now necessary, however, to call attention to the fact 
that the discriminations heretofore made between the non-intelli- 
gent, the mechanical-intelligent, and the intentional ( purposive )- 
intelligent, are all based upon the conception of a ' 'common 
factor" in intelligence. That common factor has several names 
such as seeing relations, thinking, judging, profiting by exper- 
ience, etc. ; and its exercise results in initiative, spontaneity, or 
non-predictable variation. Binet's own statement of this common 
factor is very significant, although he does not use it to make 
the distinctions herein urged. He says:* "It seems to us that 
in intelligence there is a fundamental faculty, the alteration or 
the lack of which is of the utmost importance for practical life. 
This faculty is judgment, otherwise called good sense, practical 
sense, initiative, the faculty of adapting one's self to circum- 
stances. To judge well, to comprehend well, to reason well, 
these are the essential activities of intelligence. A person may be 
a moron or an imbecile if he is lacking in judgment; but with 
good judgment he can never be either." Hence it is here con- 
ceived that where the capacity for judgment and non-predictable 
variation is lacking, intelligence is lacking. It has also been 
shown that above the unintelligent, there is a level of mechani- 
cally controlled intelligence (original and acquired), marked by 
mechanical judgment; and above that, a level of intentionally 

*The Development of Intelligence in Children, Vineland Laboratory, 
1916; p. 42. 



MODERN METHODS OF MENTAL MEASUREMENT 31 

controlled intelligence, marked by purposive judgment. It may 
be pointed out that the discrimination between the mechanical- 
intelligence and the purposive-intelligence is a discrimination 
based not upon quantity of the common factor, but upon quality 
of that factor. Judgment, initiative, spontaneity, of a mechani- 
cal quality marks mechanically controlled initiative. Judgment, 
initiative, spontaneity of a purposive quality marks intentionally 
controlled intelligence. The remainder of the thesis will be oc- 
cupied with attempts to determine the fundamental nature of the 
intentional or purposive type of intelligence, together with a 
consideration of the implications arising from the conclusions 
reached. 

There are, of course, all degrees of gradation between a com- 
pletely mechanical adaptation, and one which is completely in- 
tentional. It is even true that very many adaptations which on 
the surface are intentional, are at bottom a mixture of both types. 
But since the crucial importance of the intentional type as the 
key to directed human progress is acknowledged, and since it 
does, at times at least, occur approximately according to the 
rather schematic plan already outlined, it can do no harm to con- 
tinue the discussion from that standpoint. 

In the type of adaptation under consideration, mind is con- 
ceived to be an active factor. Through it a positive purpose of 
an individual is carried to its conclusion. It is a method of 
active solution of problems, through focus upon the possibilities 
of the situation, pause, selection of significant elements, and the 
recognition of relationships between the selected elements. 
But what are the elements between which relationships are 
found? They may be perceived material things, images of 
things, or symbols of things. With relation to any pair of such 
elements, thinking is possible. Each one of the pair is, as it 
were, held out by itself, and compared with the other. Then de- 
cision is made as to whether or not they belong together. But it 
is at first easier to do this when the objects can be obtained and 
handled (perceived) than it is to deal with images of the objects. 
And it is easier to deal with the images than it is to deal with 
symbols of the images or of the things themselves. Long before 



32 JAMES LEROY STOCKTON 

there was any organized science of psychology the intuitive psy- 
chology of the people made its own statement of this fact by 
saying that it is easier to solve a problem in the concrete than in 
the abstract. It is the idea involved in this natural and funda- 
mental usage which is to be here appealed to in attempting to 
solve the fundamental nature of intentionally controlled intelli- 
gence, just as usage was appealed to in former chapters to estab- 
lish the definition of intelligence. 

The relationship under consideration is apparent even in dif- 
ferent degrees of development of the human race. The savage 
does not deal with abstractions so easily as with the concrete 
things that come to his hands. The average intelligent member 
of modern civilization who easily solves ordinary problems in 
arithmetic, finds himself baffled in the presence of the same prob- 
lems put into generalized terms. Inevitably when thinking of 
these things one leans toward a genetic theory of development 
even within intentionally controlled intelligence itself. For al- 
though the mind acts as a unit in intentional control, it is never- 
theless easy to believe that early in the evolution of this power, 
although all possibilities of mental action were potentially pres- 
ent, the unit-activity (function) of perception was predominant 
in problem solving. On this theory, progress has consisted in 
the gradual supplementing of the perceptual activity by other 
unit-activities involving images and symbols. 

Moreover, it seems probable that this same progression rough- 
ly characterizes the life of the individual. It is probable that in 
his acts of intentionally controlled intelligence he deals easiest and 
oftenest with things, then with images of things, then with sym- 
bols. Upon this theory, feeblemindedness, which is now every- 
where recognized as retardation in mental development, is a re- 
tardation in passing from the preponderance of one of these 
forms of activity to another. Thus the common factor, judg- 
ment, again asserts its power by determining levels even within 
intentionally controlled intelligence itself; and the person of low 
purposive intelligence is seen to be the one arrested primarily 
upon the level of concrete relationships, which his more fortunate 
mates pass on to the more ready manipulation of the image and 



MODERN METHODS OF MENTAL MEASUREMENT 33 

the symbol. But again it is quality, or type, of judgment, and 
not quantity, which determines the levels; although one is, of 
course, immediately interested in the quantity of the given qual- 
ity which can be delivered. 

But the conception of intelligence as arranged in levels, which 
levels are differentiated in terms of mental functions, or mental 
unit-activities, is not identical with that theory of intelligence 
which attempts to measure intelligence through mere quantitative 
measurement of each function. Binet, and many others, have 
shown very clearly that a person may have good memory, for 
example, and yet be unintelligent. Binet says:* "Just at the 
present time we are observing a backward girl who is developing 
before our astonished eyes a memory very much greater than our 
own. We measured that memory and we are not deceived con- 
cerning it. Nevertheless that girl presents a most beautifully 
classic type of imbecility." The point is that the memory is 
there, but that the power to make non-predictable relationships 
between memories is lacking. Thus, as shown in Chapter III, 
the quantitative measurement of the function is quite different 
from the measurement of power to solve problems in terms of the 
function. Yet the functions do determine the levels upon which 
the problem-saving may occur. To handle as many levels as 
there are functions, however (sensation, perception, imagination, 
etc.), attempts a minute classification which it is relatively im- 
possible to achieve, because of the overlapping of the modes of 
activity. It is safer to condense the levels to three : ( 1 ) that of 
sensation and perception, (2) that of the image, and (3) that 
of the idea regarded as a symbol plus a meaning. Intentional 
adaptation (purposive problem-solving, thinking, learning) may 
take place through the relating of percepts, or of images, or of 
ideas. 

Evidences which point toward the truth of this hypothesis are 
numerous in popular experience, and in the existing literature of 
intelligence. In fact the evidences are so clear that it is surpris- 
ing that they have not hitherto* been gathered up and applied to 

*The Development of Intelligence in Children, Vineland Laboratory, 1916; 
P. 43- 



34 JAMES LEROY STOCKTON 

the better understanding of the nature of intelligence, and to 
methods of measurement of intelligence. The steam has been 
lifting the lid of the kettle for a long time, but the significance 
of the fact has remained obscure. 

77. Existing evidences that purposive intelligence is conditioned 
by levels based upon an analysis of mind. 

1. The generally accepted idea that the abstract is "harder than 

the concrete". 

Since concrete and abstract are only popular terms for the 
more technical psychological concepts of sensation, perception, 
memory, ideation, etc., the popular concept of degrees of intelli- 
gence is, therefore, seen to be in terms of a natural analysis of 
mind, stated as types of activity. 

2. The popular, but contradictory, conception that pupils con- 
sidered dull because they fail in abstract subjects, prove 

their intelligence by success in concrete subjects. 

Over and over again, the child who cannot learn arithmetic, 
history, geography, etc., is assigned to manual training or other 
subjects in which concrete situations predominate, and succeeds 
in the new field. To say, however, that because of this success 
he proves his intelligence, is to go contrary to the belief that 
abstract subjects are harder than concrete ones. Even to say 
that one who fails in abstract subjects and succeeds in concrete 
ones has a different kind of intelligence, does not meet the 
point. He has also a different degree of intelligence. The pro- 
gress of humanity, all the higher life of man, depends upon the 
control of the abstract. A civilization based mainly upon the con- 
crete would be a civilization set back indefinitely. A person who 
lives mainly in the concrete is a person who has not the intelli- 
gence to enter fully into the life of the race to which he belongs. 
He has some intelligence, but it is only a limited intelligence. He 
lacks certain levels of ability which are possessed by the mind 
more capable of abstraction. 



MODERN METHODS OF MENTAL MEASUREMENT 35 

3. Courses of study in institutions for the feeble-minded. 

The predominating type of material is perceptual. Manual 
training, and all of these subjects of instruction which tend to 
feature predominantly the concrete, form the bulk of the curricu- 
lum. Only the most elementary abstract work is- attempted. 
(Thought work used consistently as pre-requisite to construc- 
tion, could, and often does, raise the level of intelligence re- 
quired by manual training, and make it a valuable study for mod- 
ern schools. Then, however, the feeble-minded do not succeed 
in it so well.) 

4. Clinical descriptions of typical feeble-minded persons. 

These nearly always show the tendency to arrest in the terri- 
tory of the concrete More than that they show that in concrete 
work such cases are, sometimes and even often, the equals or 
even the superiors of more intelligent subjects. That this is so, 
constitutes one of the most significant facts confirming the theory 
of intelligence herein advocated, since it shows that on the per- 
ception (concrete) level, high and low intelligence are much 
closer together than they are on the more abstract levels. Below 
is Doll's account of a typical feeble-minded case. The reader is 
asked to note how the concrete is emphasized in this case, both 
in the results of the mental tests, and in the subject's ability ir? 
manual and industrial work. 

Doll: Clincal Studies in Feeblemindedness, Badger, 191 7, 

pp. 81-89. 

"Donald, born 4/14/95, was first examined 3/5/10 at the 
age of 14.9. By Goddard's 191 o revision of the B-S scale his 
mental age was 9.6 years. He passed all the tests at years VI 
and VII, failed memories at VIII and at IX, passed months and 
money at X, and absurdities at XI. Absolute retardation 
amounted to 5.3 years, relative retardation, 36 per cent. I. Q. 
was 64, and gave rise to a diagnosis of feeblemindedness, and a 
classification of middle grade moron. . . . Only extended and well 
directed conversation makes one conscious of his mental de- 



36 JAMES LEROY STOCKTON 

ficiency; then, a poverty of ideas, a lack of originality, limited 
information, and vague comprehension of abstract relations are 
apparent. But these are subjective impressions of which most 
visitors who interview him seldom become aware. They stand 
out more definitely and clearly under observation in standard 
situations. ... A formal pedagogical examination was not made, 
but school reports are now available. These show that he at- 
tended an orphan asylum school for two years, but made no 
appreciable progress. Furthermore, in spite of the exceptional 
advantages offered by the school department of The Training 
School, with its intensive and extensive individual teaching, he 
has never been reported as being able to do better than poor 
first-grade academic work. In music, and in manual and indus- 
trial work, he came to be one of the ablest of all the pupils. In 
particular he did well as a farm hand and learned to handle 
machinery, and to work with comparatively little supervision. He 
played well on the bass horn, both band and solo work, and al- 
though he was somewhat careless he had the reputation of being, 
under supervision, 'the finest industrial worker in the school'. . . . 
Donald was examined by the writer 5/27/15, using Goddard's 
191 1 revision of the B-S scale. The result showed a mental age 
of 9.6, which was identical with the first and four succeeding 
examinations by different examiners. In these repeated tests he 
showed some losses and some compensating gains over the earlier 
tests but the gross results have always been identical. He passed 
all tests up to year IX. At X he failed to make change, saying 
that three cents from twenty gives sixteen, seven from twenty- 
five cents gives seventeen, and six from twenty gives eighteen, 
with the actual money before him. As an independent member 
of society he would be dependent upon the honesty of merchants 
or the kindly financial assistance of friends. At year X he ex- 
hibited only hazy knowledge of the pieces of money above one 
dollar (although he had had ample opportunity to know money 
values), failed in the abstract comprehension tests, and in con- 
structing a sentence. At year 1 1 he succeeded with the rhymes, 
but missed all the other tests of that year. At twelve he passed 
only the suggestion test, and that in a manner to merit discount 



MODERN METHODS OF MENTAL MEASUREMENT 37 

on the basis of previous experience and memory. His failure in 
these tests could not be said to be due to lack of scholastic or 
other training, for he had been pressed to learn all that his men- 
tal ability enabled him to assimilate. . . . Thus all experience and 
observation with Donald confirm the diagnosis made in 1910. 
At the end of five years of intensive training in all fields of learn- 
ing his mental capacity is the same as at the first examination. 
This case is typical of the milder forms of high-grade defect 
frequently met with in institutional experience. " 

5. Evidence drawn from the construction and the application 
of certain intelligence tests. 

The evidence appealed to here will be that which shows that 
the power of the so-called "performance" material to differen- 
tiate mental age tends to decrease above the age of about eight 
years, and to reach its limit about the age of twelve years. By 
"performance" material is meant those tests which utilize con- 
crete material and appeal mainly to sensation and perception. 
Form-boards, picture puzzles, etc., are typical examples, although 
the variation in the field is practically unlimited. 

A. ILLUSTRATION FROM THE BINET TESTS.* 

Most of the tests in the early years are either perceptual as in 
III(i), 111(2), 111(3), IV(i), IV(2), etc., or they are repro- 
ductive of something which has been picked up through the ex- 
perience of much repetition and reproduced from memory. Ex- 
amples of the latter are 111(4), 111(5), etc - But ft * s to ^ e 
noted that such material decreases upward through the years, 
more abstract material is added, and more immediate solution 
of new problems is called for. By the age of ten the concrete 
material is practically gone except for X(3) (designs), and 
X(A1.3) (Healy-Fernald Puzzle A) ; and the problem with the 
designs draws heavily upon image states as well as upon percep- 
tual states. It is true that in year XII one finds the Ball and 
Field problem which might be classed as a performance test ; but 
the scoring in this year requires "superior plan", which means 

*Terman, The Measurement of Intelligence, Houghton-Mifflin Co., 1916. 



38 JAMES LEROY STOCKTON 

that a thoroughly logical and complete abstract conception must 
precede the performance. 

B. ILLUSTRATION FROM THE DE SANCTIS TESTS.f 

These tests constitute a graded series. Assuming that the 
correct materials are present, a rough notion of the procedure 
can be obtained from the following: 

i. Give me a ball. 

2. Which is the ball you gave me? 

3. Do you see this block of wood? Pick out all the blocks 
like this from the pile on the table. 

4. Do you see this block? (a cube). Point out a figure on 
the form chart that looks like it. Take this pencil (or pointer) 
and point out all the squares on the chart as fast as possible 
without missing any, taking the figures line by line. 

5. Here are some more blocks like those you have pointed 
out on the chart. Look at them carefully and tell me (a) how 
many there are, (b) which is the largest, (c) which is the far- 
thest away from you? 

6. Do large objects weigh more or less than small objects? 
Why does a small object sometimes weigh more than a large 
one? Do distant objects appear larger or smaller than near 
objects? Do they only seem smaller or are they really smaller? 

Determination of the degree of mental deficiency in accord- 
ance with the tests. 

1. If the subject does not pass the second test the mental de- 
ficiency may be considered of a high degree. 

2. If the subject cannot go beyond the fourth test, or if he 
makes many mistakes or is very uncertain in the fifth, the mental 
deficiency may be considered of a medium grade. 

3. If the subject succeeds in five tests but finds the sixth diffi- 
cult, the mental deficiency may be considered of a slight amount. 

4. Finally, if the sixth test is completed without mistakes, the 
subject may be said to present no mental deficiency. 

fDe Sanctis, Mental Development, etc., Journal of Educational Psychol- 
ogy, 2, 191 1. 



MODERN METHODS OF MENTAL MEASUREMENT 39 

Note ( I ) how the work in this series begins on the perceptual 
level in very uncomplicated form; (2) how the perceptual is 
gradually complicated; and (3) how the perceptual gradually 
gives way to the symbolic; and (4) how finally, in the directions 
for determining the degree of mental deficiency, the decision rests 
absolutely upon the ability to climb this ladder from the percep- 
tual to the symbolic. 

C. ILLUSTRATIONS FROM MATERIAL UTILIZED BY PINTNER AND 
PATTERSON IN "a SCALE OF PERFORMANCE TESTS" 

(appleton 'ii). 

Examination of these graphs makes it clear at once that be- 
tween five or six years, and nine and ten years, mental ages are 
fairly well, and in many cases very well, discriminated ; but about 
ten the curves show a growing tendency to flatten out and to 
continue upon a plateau. By the age of twelve this tendency has 
gained such power that the graphs show little differentiation 
above that point, and where differentiation is shown by the 
graphs in years thirteen or fourteen, the experience of at least 
some of the users of the tests has been that results are not likely 
to be very reliable in those areas. 

There is at least one exception, among the graphs, to the con- 
clusion just reached. The reference is to the Knox Cube Test 
(Graph 2j). This test shows better differentiation which may be 
referred to the fact that the discerning and holding in mind for 
repetition, of the increasingly complex series of responses, utilizes 
more than do the other tests powers which are superior to mere 
sensation or perception. 

When one looks at the amazingly uniform tendency of per- 
formance tests to reach the limit of their differentiating power 
at a point roughly shown in the graphs, one must feel that it is 
probably more than a coincidence that a mental age of ten or 
twelve for adults has usually been chosen by intelligence experts 
as the dividing line between normality and feeblemindedness. It 
seems probable that performance test standarizations have, per- 
haps unwittingly, established the approximate point where ab- 
straction must gain the ascendency, or subnormality become ap- 
parent. 



Graphs from "A Scale of Performance Tests/' Pintner and Patterson 
(Appleton, 1917). The numbering follows the original text. 



/So 

ifo 

130 
/2.0 
110 

too 



70 
bo 

so 
to 

30 



10 



w 



K$sf 



1 I 



/i 



* 7 ? ? 

Graph 6. The Mare and Foal Test. Time. 



1 j 



/«- 



Errors 
II 
a 

9 
t 

7 

6 



X^eS- 



<o 7 g f I 

Graph 7. The Mare and 




n rx 1 3 
Foal Test. Errors. 



is- 



Graphs from "A Scale of Performance Tests/' Pintner and Patterson 
(Appleton, 1917). The numbering follows the original text. 

M 



nfo 




ZS 



zo 



/s 



/o 



W 



7 r f ft n 1*. 

Graph 8. The Seguin Form Board. Time. 



/s? 




*8c°? 



6 7 8- ? 

Graph 9. The Five Figure Form Board. 



Z. 13 

Time. 



is- 



Graphs from "A Scale of Performance Tests/' Pintner and Patterson 
(Appleton, 1917). The numbering follows the original text. 
E*->ors 



n/y.c 



A£e°? 




6 7 f 9 Jo it iz *s 

Graph 10. The Five Figure Form Board. Errors. 



^y 



& 





*fi<& 



10 



1 1 



1 < 



1 j 



Graph ii. The Two Figure Form Board. Time. 



^y 



/s- 



Graphs from "A Scale of Performance Tests/' Pintner and Patterson 
(Appleton, 1917). The numbering follows the original text. 




W7 



.5- s 7 $- T to 11 n t3 

Graph 12. The Two Figure Form Board. Moves. 



77- 




t\$eS- 



7 * 9 ) 

Graph 13. The Casuist Form 



/ 11 /J 

Board. Time. 



i$- 



44 



JAMES LEROY STOCKTON 



Graphs from "A Scale of Performance Tests/' Pintner and Patterson 
(Appleton, 1917). The numbering follows the original text. 




w? 



\> 7 a- 9 '* n '■*• I* 

Graph 14. The Casuist Form Board. Errors. 



If /5 s 



QN.C 




IS*? 



£> 7 & 9 10 II l Z /J 

Graph 15. The Triangle Test. Time. 



/* 



MODERN METHODS OF MENTAL MEASUREMENT 



45 



Graphs from "A Scale of Performance Tests/' Pintner and Patterson 
(Appleton, 1917). The numbering follows the original text. 




w? 



6 7 r 9 10 a i z. /3 

Graph 16. The Triangle Test. Errors. 



if /&- 7% 



Time 

P.N.C 



Zoo 
1 to 
1 60 
l*fp 

no 
too 

$-0 

Co 



zo 



**w 



^ 



* 



Id 



It 



i i 



13 



7y 72- 



Graph 17. The Diagonal Test. Time. 



46 



JAMES LEROY STOCKTON 



Graphs from "A Scale of Performance Tests/' Pintner and Patterson 
(Appleton, 1917). The numbering follows the original text. 



30 



Z£ 



2.0 



I* 



10 



flffeJ 




7 a~ 9 jo ' ' {^(3 

Graph 18. The Diagonal Test. Errors. 



7? 



t&* 



one 

PA(.<? 
300 










































































































































2.00 
























Ma 
/4o 


























































































IZA 
160 

fro 
bo 

+0 








>* v 


s t 






















V 


s. 














































































*m " 










1 












1 £ 


F i 


» 1 


" s 


r -5 


f /6 


) 1 


t 1 


Z. 1 


3 r* 


¥ ' 


$• t£> 



Graph 19. Healy Puzzle "A." Time. 



MODERN METHODS OF MENTAL MEASUREMENT 



47 



Graphs from "A Scale of Performance Tests/' Pintner and Patterson 
(Appleton, 1917). The numbering follows the original text. 

Moves 



D.N$ 



kc 



SO 



xo 



to 



\ 



^Ue^ b 7 £ £ to ' ( HC '3 

Graph 20. Healy Puzzle "A." Moves. 



Score 
























- 














/ 




















/ 














^^^ 












/ 




















f 




/ 


/ 




















Sa& 


l z 


/ 

1 ? 




H i 


» ? 


\ 


r \ 


» ' /i 


i 


1 — 7 


JT7 


3 /<? 



Graph 21. The Mannikin Test. Score. 



48 



JAMES LEROY STOCKTON 



Graphs from "A Scale of Performance Tests/' Pintner and Patterson 
(Appleton, 1917). The numbering follows the original text. 

Tc?ne 




t&n 



/&• /e 



Graph 22. The Feature Profile Test. Time. 



Scoter 



*eZ^ 



^\ 



~ZL 



2: 



/$■ 



10 



# 



f\s^f 



7 * 9 10 u 1 z* is 

Graph 23. The Ship Test. Score. 



yy /$" t& 



MODERN METHODS OF MENTAL MEASUREMENT 



49 



Graphs from "A Scale of Performance Tests," Pintner and Patterson 
(Appleton, 1917). The numbering follows the original text. 



Score 






































































1*0 

fro 

3 bo 
3ZC 
lto 

xfo 

3 t)h 


















































































































































































IU 

li.C 

to 
























/ 






















/ 


































































\ t 


f 


7 S 


\ 


/( 


? / 


r 1 


*. 1 


3 1 


4- 


15- 


/J> 



Graph 24. The Picture Completion Test. Score. 



P.N.C 
3fy 




















































\ 
























\ 
























\ 






















3&>0 

330 
Cf 00 




\ 
























\ 
























\ 























X70 

2J0 
I2r0 
Ib'O 






\ 
























\ 
























\ 
























\ 












































1 3j0 


























?C 


























ko 


























3o 


























i\si> 
















1 






f- i 


Gi 


7 
aph : 


8 

25. T 


r 9 
le Su 


^stitut 


ion Te 


f 

St. 


/ 

S 


core. 


\ /' 


■/■ 


/ i 


r /% 



50 



JAMES LEROY STOCKTON 



Graphs from "A Scale of Performance Tests/' Pintner and Patterson 
(Appleton, 1917). The numbering follows the original text. 



Moves 




WJ 



Graph 26. The Adaptation Board. Moves correct. 






r 



z 



t 






Z 




Afge ir *t k £"""7 V 4 10 i'i u i r y /V /5- U 17 is- fa 
Graph 27. The Cube Test. Lines Correct. 



MODERN METHODS OF MENTAL MEASUREMENT 51 

D. ILLUSTRATION FROM PERFORMANCE TEST MATERIAL 
DEVELOPED BY HEALY. 

The Healy performance tests show tendencies similar to the 
other tests of the same type. However, the main use made of 
Healy's work here will be as a basis for discussion of the relative 
failure of adults with performance material, and the signifi- 
cance of this fact to the theory of intelligence levels. The fol- 
lowing quotation, beginning on page 200 of the monograph, "A 
Pictorial Completion Test",* is in point: 

"The older individual is prone to meet a simple situation with 
the idea that there must be something back of it. . . . The 'might 
be' of the adult with his greater stock of ideas is very rarely 
heard from the child. ... Of course the chicken 'might be' 
jumping at the cat, or at the bird in the cage. The greater ex- 
perience of adults led them to perceive many more possibilities 
in the situation than the child sees. It may be this, rather than 
any conscious attempt at criticism which leads the adult to go 
much farther than taking the picture at its barest face values." 

This all means that the normal adult is inclined to inject ab- 
straction into the situation, and to refuse to deal exclusively with 
the simple concrete which is before him. He puts in much more 
than he sees. He does poorer work on the tests because his mind 
really works better. If he cannot put in the extra abstraction, he 
is not a normal adult, his mind is retarded on the level of the 
concrete, the predominating level of the child-mind. Below is 
a table based upon examination of 95 college people with the 
Healy Picture Completion Test. 

THE WELLESLEY DATAf 

I. Cases with no errors 

Wellesley 26% 

Private School 30% 

Delinquents (B Group) 33% 

Delinquents (A Group) 40% 

*Psychological Review, XXI, 3. 
fPsychological Review, XXI, 3. 



52 JAMES LEROY STOCKTON 

II. Percentage of total errors to pieces placed 
Wellesley 21.7% 

Private School i5«o% 

Delinquents (B Group) 10.0% 

Delinquents (A Group) 6.0% 

III. Percentage of total errors illogical 

Wellesley 64.0% 

Private School 50.0% 

Delinquents (B Group) 40.0% 

Delinquents (A Group) 33-0% 

The evidence of poorer work on the part of the college students 
in the strictly perceptual part of the problem is here very evi- 
dent. If the suggested reason for it is the true one, however, the 
poor showing is a recommendation rather than otherwise. Even 
the high per cent of illogical error as judged in perceptual terms, 
becomes logical when judged in abstract terms, and therefore be- 
comes a recommendation rather than a fault. These data, there- 
fore, are understandable on the theory that the one who can get 
the most out of a perceptual test is the one who has not developed 
beyond the perceptual level. He does not have the great stock of 
abstract ideas to bother him, and consequently he saves time by 
direct and naive solution of the concrete situation. Perhaps the 
best way to make a performance test indicate truly the intelli- 
gence of the adult would be so to regulate it that the number of 
original, but proved logical, solutions would determine the score. 
Then the adult would not be penalized for his higher type of intel- 
ligence as he now is in such tests. (Pintner and Patterson, work- 
ing with the Knox tests with children, were obliged to set higher 
limits of achievement and time than those used by Knox with 
adults.) — See discussion at several points in "A Scale of Per- 
formance Tests", by Pintner and Patterson. (Appleton, 191 7.) 

E. ILLUSTRATIONS FROM STUDIES DIRECTED TOWARD THE 

DETERMINATION OF THE TYPE OF MENTAL FUNCTION 

POSSESSED BY THE FEEBLEMINDED. 

A very good illustration is found in the excellent study by 
Cyrus D. Mead, Ph.D., Teachers' College Contribution to Edu- 



MODERN METHODS OF MENTAL MEASUREMENT 53 

cation, No. 76, on "The Relations of General Intelligence to Cer- 
tain Mental and Physical Traits". The reader is referred to Dr. 
Mead's monograph for the conclusive data back of the assertions 
made in the following quotation concerning the relative percep- 
tual and memory powers of the feebleminded and the normal 
child. 

Page 78, line 3 : "As a practical suggestion from the above 
data, and with a firmer conviction after six years of experience in 
the education of hundreds of mentally defective children, the au- 
thor would offer the point that in the ability to perceive and to 
memorize defective children do better than in any other of the 
purely mental traits. It makes less difference with these children 
whether the material has relationship than it does with normal 
children. Memory seems to be a characteristic in itself, native 
perhaps. It is a common occurrence to have defective children 
call their teacher's attention to any slight change in the latter's 
dress. The powers of perception and memory then should be 
used to the utmost in the education of these children. The most 
practical contribution made by Miss Norsworthy in her study is 
quoted: 'To speak of (defectives) them as being equally defi- 
cient in all the mental powers is false. . . . From the point of view 
of the psychologist and the educator it is fully as important to 
know that the (defective's) perceptive powers are almost two 
and a half times as strong and accurate as his intellectual powers, 
and almost half as strong again as is his powers of memory, as 
to know that he is weaker than the ordinary child in all of these 
particulars.' " 

Three things here are evident : ( 1 ) that defective children do 
not possess the higher mental functions to the degree that these 
functions are possessed by normal children; (2) that they possess 
memory and perception to a very considerable degree; and (3) 
that they tend to fail in the power to note relationships between 
the memories and percepts which they really possess. 

Another illustration may be drawn from the pamphlet by Knox 
on "Alien Mental Defectives" (Stocking, Chicago). In this 
pamphlet is a study entitled, "A Comparative Study of the 
Imaginative Power in Mental Defectives". Again the reader is 
referred to the article itself for the data which are too detailed to 



54 JAMES LEROY STOCKTON 

reproduce here; but the conclusions are significant. (The test 
was the common "Ink Blot" test.) Dr. Knox says : 

"(i) It is apparent from a study of the tables that there are 
no Jules Vernes among the twenty-five defectives, at least, and, 
as compared to the twenty-five normals, there is very little abil- 
ity to draw mental pictures from commonplace or amorphous ob- 
jects. (2) The associations among the defectives are for the 
most part not logical. ... (4) The reaction-time was nearly twice 
as long in the defectives as in the normals. ... (5) Tests of 
imagination and the average reaction-time to questions may be 
valuable points to consider when dealing with mental defectives 
from a diagnostic standpoint." 

This quotation, and its supporting data, reinforce the point of 
the previous quotation that the imaging ability of the feeblemind- 
ed is less than their perceptive ability, and that their logic, or 
judgment, is the least of all of their abilities. 



F. ILLUSTRATIONS FROM SUCCESS AND FAILURE IN ABSTRACT 
AND CONCRETE SUBJECTS OF INSTRUCTION. 

In an article by Cummins in "The Journal of Educational 
Psychology", October, 19 19, there appears a comparison of 
"bright" and "slow" pupils. In the process of this study there 
is developed the following with relation to the relative difficulty 
of studies : 

"By dividing the number of cases in which high marks were 
received, by the number of cases in which low marks were re- 
ceived, the ratios thus obtained give us a fair picture of the rela- 
tive difriculty of each subject. Arranging the subjects in the or- 
der of these ratios from the highest to the lowest, we have the fol- 
lowing array: 

Physical Training 14.67 

Arts (Domestic and Fine) 5.25 

Shop (Manual Training, etc.) • . 3.00 

English and History 1.56 

Modern Language 1.42 

Science .92 

Ancient Language .46 

Mathematics .19 



MODERN METHODS OF MENTAL MEASUREMENT 55 

Thus there appears an almost perfect gradation all the way 
from the subject which is almost wholly a matter of ideo-motor 
coordination, to the subject which involves the largest amount of 
abstract thinking. The only possible exception is that of an- 
cient language which should no doubt have occurred in the array 
following the modern languages." 

It is true that, since this relationship of studies is based upon 
marks received, the reason for the greater number of high marks 
received in physical training, etc., and the frequency of low 
marks in mathematics, etc., may have been the different marking 
standards of different teachers. But it is improbable that the 
sequence in the array from concrete to abstract would have been 
anywhere nearly so perfect unless it was at least somewhat deter- 
minded by the real character of the subjects as well as by the per- 
sonal equation of the person giving the marks. The conclusion 
from the data presented that abstract studies are relatively harder 
(require more intelligence) is a relatively safe one. 

Other illustrations of this point might easily be produced. 
Some material taken from "The Illinois Survey" (Published 
191 7 by the Illinois State Teachers' Association), will suffice. 

Table VIII— Sec. 10 

Median Proportion of Pupils in Each Grade, Page 124, Reported as "Finding 
Difficulty in Completing Required Work". 

No. of Teachers Median Proportion of 

Grade Reporting Pupils "Finding Difficulty". 

I 192 6%-io% 

II 124 6%-io% 

III 102 n%-i5% 

IV 116 6%-io% 

V 112 6%-io% 

VI 114 6%-io% 

VII in 6%-io% 

VIII 109 6%-io% 

Note. — Because of certain reasons the extra percentage in grade III is not 
considered especially significant. 

In Terman's "The Measurement of Intelligence'', p. 78, there 
is a table showing that in an unselected group of persons of a 
reasonably large number, the intelligence quotients of the lowest 
ten per cent will be 85 or below. It is reasonably safe to sup- 
pose that the children under consideration by these Illinois teach- 



56 JAMES LEROY STOCKTON 

ers represented such an unselected group, and that those reported 
as "finding difficulty" were largely those of approximately 85 
I. Q. or below, since the 6 per cent to 10 per cent reported would 
be constituted of just about the low I. Q.'s in question. The fol- 
lowing table from the same survey gives further light upon the 
matter. 

Table IX — Sec. i, Page 125 

Subjects in Which Pupils Find it Difficult to Complete the Required Work. 

34.60% of teachers reporting name reading 

18.15% of teachers reporting name arithmetic 

17.46% of teachers reporting name language 

17.26% of teachers reporting name geography 
13.84% of teachers reporting name spelling 

12.79% of teachers reporting name grammar 
10.70% of teachers reporting name history 

On page 143 of the same book is found the following: 

"The subjects in which the greatest difficulty is experienced, 
varies from grade to grade. In general, arithmetic may be 
looked upon as the most difficult subject as measured by the 
standard represented in Table IX (teachers' judgments), and the 
difficulty of this subject is sustained throughout the grades, from 
the third to the eighth." 

It is clear that these teachers found the poorest 10 per cent of 
the children (almost certainly children of low I. Q.) having 
trouble with the abstract subjects. Not a single one of the more 
perceptual subjects is mentioned. Again the result might be due 
to excessive requirements in the subjects named, and the light 
requirements in the other subjects; but the chances are all in 
favor of the assumption that the type of subject, abstract or 
concrete, is at least partially the determining factor. Another 
table from the same survey is interesting in this connection. 

Something of the same progression from concrete to abstract 
is seen in Table XVII. The assumption is possibly a fair one that 
teachers would, in matters of promotion, disregard those sub- 
jects which they do not consider to be very good tests of a child's 
general ability. 

In this same survey there is a study of "Some Exceptional 
High School Pupils in Illinois" by E. E. Jones. He shows that 



MODERN METHODS OF MENTAL MEASUREMENT 57 

Table XVII— Page 140 

Subjects Disregarded in Determining Promotion. 

Proportion of 
1407 Teachers Reporting 

Subject Subject as Disregarded 

Music 67.3 

Drawing 65.4 

Writing 31.4 

Physiology and Hygiene 10.2 

Manual Training 9.1 

Physical Training 9.1 

Spelling 8.1 

Arithmetic 2.8 

Reading 2.8 

History 2.7 

Language 2.0 

Geography 1.9 

Grammar 9.5 

these pupils did all round good work in the grades and did not 
drift toward any particular line of work. They were not pushed 
early into manual training or other hand work. They had gen- 
eral ability; and this general ability showed in the high school 
as well as in the grades. The pupils tended to be good in every- 
thing that they undertook. And yet the author says that he 
found no reason why these persons excelled. Is it not clear that 
they excelled because they had good general endowment — in 
ability to deal with the abstract as well as in ability to deal with 
the concrete? 



CHAPTER V 

The Fundamental Nature of Intentional Adaptation 

(Continued). 

/. Original quantitative studies, 
I. In upper school grades. 

Attempts made by the writer to test the hypothesis of levels 
in intentionally controlled intelligence have been guided by the 
conclusion that if the theory in question is true, then the achieve- 
ment of high and low intelligence should be nearest together on 
the perceptual level where all tend to be more equally endowed, 
and farthest apart on the symbol level, upon which low intelli- 
gence finds it hard to act at all. (To leave out the image level 
accents the contrast of the extremes.) 

In this upper grade study the first step in quantitative deter- 
mination was that of ascertaining the general intelligence of a 
chosen group so that the result could be used as a criterion for 
checking further work. For this purpose the Binet-Simon tests 
were chosen as the best available instrument. It is true that 
these tests themselves show a gradation from perceptual material 
to symbol material, and that, at first glance, it might seem that 
to use them as a criterion in attempts to prove the existence of 
levels based upon the same principle, would be to reason in a 
circle. On the contrary, the exact reverse is the case. When the 
authors devised these tests they made use of a purely trial and 
error method. They experimented with very numerous "stunts" 
of all descriptions and the separate tests really located them- 
selves. They fell into certain relative positions and relationships 
because as a result of their fundamental nature they could oc- 
cupy no other positions and relationships. After they had as- 
sumed those relationships, and so had become a scale for the 
measurement of intelligence, that scale was checked by criteria 



MODERN METHODS OF MENTAL MEASUREMENT 59 

of all kinds, such as estimates of intelligence, school work, school 
progress, experience in life, etc., etc. ; and it is now generally 
admitted to be the best instrument for getting at an approxima- 
tion to exact quantitative measurement of intelligence. If one 
accepts the scale as it is and examines it with the purpose of dis- 
covering the factor responsible for the self -arrangement of the 
individual tests, one is forced to conclude that this responsible 
factor lies in differences in amounts of perceptual and symbolic 
material utilized at various levels. Thus these tests themselves 
supply a certain amount of confirmation of the hypothesis for 
which proof is sought, and they have already been so cited. 

But one can go farther. For example, if one makes brick 
and gets an especially excellent quality, he may examine all con- 
ditions of the process and try to decide upon the factor respon- 
sible for the excellence. Then he can vary that factor, compare 
with the original results, and so test his opinion as to the factor's 
responsibility for the excellence. The intention has been similar 
in the present instance. The start is made on the theory of the 
responsibility of the proportions of the perceptual and symbol 
materials, those proportions are varied, and the results are ex- 
amined for light upon the theory. 

An abbreviated form of the Binet-Simon tests (the starred 
tests of the Stanford Revision) was given to 364 children in 
grades four to eight, inclusive, of a normal training school. 
Table I shows the raw data of this study. 

Table I 
Original Data: Abbreviated Binet and Teachers' Estimates of Intelligence. 

Eighth Grade. 
Case Born Tested M.A. istEst. 2nd Est. 



I 


10/18/03 


3/ 4/i9 


14- 2.5 


5 


4 


2 


12/24/04 


2/25/19 


14- 7-5 


4 


4 


3 


11/ 16/04 


2/25/19 


15- 4-5 


4 


4 


4 


12/29/05 


2/28/19 


16- 


4 


4 


5 


1/26/05 


2/26/19 


17- 4-5 


3 


3 


6 


9/14/03 


2/25/19 


I5-I0.5 


3 


3 


7 


10/17/02 


3/ 4/i9 


13- 


6 


5 


8 


12/ 4/03 


3/ 4/i9 


13- 9-5 


6 


5 


9 


5/ 6/05 


2/26/19 


15- 2 


4 


3 


10 


8/23/04 


2/25/19 


16- 7.5 


4 


3 


11 


6/13/03 


2/27/19 


14- 8 


4 


5 


12 


9/ 9/03 


2/26/19 


15- 9-5 


5 


4 


13 


11/25/03 


3/ 4/i9 


12- 75 


6 


5 



6o 



JAMES LEROY STOCKTON 



Table I (Continued) 
Eighth Grade 

Case Born Tested M.A. 

14 1/11/05 2/26/19 

15 6/28/01 3/ 4/19 

16 3/ 1/04 2/28/19 

17 5/19/05 2/27/19 

18 3/ 6/04 2/28/19 

19 9/17/03 2/27/19 

20 4/ 9/03 2/25/19 

21 8/ 2/02 3/ 4/19 

22 7/17/05 2/28/19 

23 3/30/05 2/26/19 

24 11/ 16/04 3/ 4/19 

25 10/28/01 3/ 4/19 

26 8/21/03 2/28/19 

27 3/ 9/03 3/ 4/i9 

28 3/18/05 2/25/19 

29 9/18/05 2/26/19 

30 10/ 1/03 2/27/19 

31 5/14/05 2/26/19 

32 5/18/03 3/ 4/19 

33 7/20/04 2/28/19 

34 11/24/04 3/ 4/19 

35 12/ 4/02 2/26/19 

36 4/ 2/02 3/ 4/19 

37 8/29/04 3/ 4/19 

38 2/18/06 2/25/19 

39 2/12/01 3/ 4/19 

40 10/ 2/04 3/ 4/19 

41 11/ 8/05 3/ 4/19 

42 1/29/06 3/ 4/19 

43 11/ 2/00 4/ 9/19 

44 2/ 5/06 3/ 4/19 

45 11/ 2/04 3/ 4/19 

46 6/16/06 3/ 4/19 

47 1/19/05 3/ 4/i9 

48 6/ 8/04 3/ 4/i9 

49 2/ 8/06 3/ 4/19 

50 8/ 2/04 3/ 4/i9 

51 12/25/02 3/ 3/19 

52 12/15/04 3/ 4/i9 

53 7/1 1/05 3/ 3/i9 

54 3/22/05 3/ 4/i9 

55 8/14/03 3/ 4/i9 

56 5/29/04 3/ 4/i9 

57 2/15/07 3/ 4/i9 

58 10/13/05 3/ 4/i9 

59 10/ 6/05 3/ 4/i9 

60 8/ 4/03 3/ 4/19 

61 12/12/02 3/ 4/19 

62 12/ 9/03 3/ 4/19 

63 11/23/02 3/ 4/19 

64 3/ 2/05 3/ 4/i9 

65 5/20/05 3/ 4/i9 

66 12723705 3/ 4/19 

67 2/22/04 3/ 4/19 

68 6/24/07 3/ 4/19 



15-10.5 


1 


11- 4 


6 


13- 95 


4 


13- 7-5 


3 


15- 4-5 


3 


13- 7-5 


4 


12- 8 


5 


13- 7 


6 


15- 5-5 


4 


14- 5 


4 


13- 2 


4 


11- 4-5 


5 


12- 6 


5 


12- 8 


6 


13- i.5 


3 


16- 


1 


13-11.5 


4 


14- 5 


4 


12- 7.5 


6 


13- 9 


4 


16- 7.5 


3 


13- 1-5 


4 


13- 35 


7 


14- 2 


4 


15-6 


1 


15- 3 


5 


14- 3 


5 


15- 3 


4 


14- 4-5 


4 


13- 3-5 


6 


16-10.5 


4 


14- 9 


3 


18- 1.5 


2 


16- 7-5 


3 


15- 9-5 


4 


15- 4-5 


4 


14- 3 


4 


15-8 


6 


13- 2 


5 


14- 7.5 


4 


14- 1.5 


6 


16-10.5 


4 


13- 8.5 


6 


16- 1.5 


2 


17- 4-5 


2 


13-n 


5 


15- 1-5 


5 


14-6 


6 


13- 9-5 


5 


12- 8.5 


6 


12- 6 


4 


14- 7-5 


4 


12- 8.5 


4 


15-6 


4 


15- 4-5 


4 



1st Est. 2nd Est. 

3 

6 

4 
4 
4 
4 
5 
5 
4 
4 
5 
6 

5 
5 
4 

1 

4 
4 
6 

4 
3 

4 
7 
4 
I 
6 
5 
4 
4 
6 

3 
3 
1 

4 
4 
4 
3 
6 

4 
4 
6 

4 
6 
2 
2 
5 
5 
6 

5 
6 

4 
4 
4 
4 
4 



MODERN METHODS OF MENTAL MEASUREMENT 



61 







Table I (Continue 


id) 










Eighth Grade 








Case 


Born 


Tested 


M.A. 


1st Est. 


2nd E 


69 


11/ 6/04 


3/ 3/i9 


14- 4-5 


4 


4 


70 


5/22/04 


3/ 4/i9 


16- 


5 


5 


7i 


10/ 4/04 


3/ 4/i9 


11- 8 


5 


5 


72 


2/18/04 


3/ 4/i9 


13- 6 


5 


5 


73 


9/15/05 


3/ 4/i9 


14- 5 


4 


4 


74 


3/11/06 


3/ 4/i9 
Seventh Grade 


16- 


4 


4 


1 


6/ 9/05 


3/ 4/i9 


16- 


4 


4 


2 


9/20/05 


3/ 4/i9 


14- 10.5 


4 


4 


3 


3/ 7/o6 


3/ 4/i9 


15- 9 


3 


2 


4 


1/ 1/04 


3/ 4/i9 


14- 0.5 


4 


4 


5 


5/13/05 


3/ 4/i9 


16- 


3 


3 


6 


10/12/02 


3/ 4/i9 


14-10 


4 


3 


7 


11/ 9/05 


3/ 4/i9 


14- 7-5 


3 


3 


8 


11/23/03 


4/11/19 


13- 2 


5 


5 


9 


6/ 4/05 


3/ 4/19 


15- 6.5 


3 


3 


10 


7/23/07 


4/11/19 


16- 1.5 


3 


3 


11 


1/20/05 


3/11/19 


15- 7-5 


4 


5 


12 


12/ 7/05 


3/ 4/i9 


16- 


4 


3 


13 


9/24/06 


3/ 4/19 


15- 4-5 


3 


2 


14 


12/ 8/03 


3/11/19 


14- 3 


5 


5 


15 


12/15/04 


3/ 4/19 


14-10.5 


4 


5 


16 


3/ 7/05 


3/ 4/i9 


14- 7-5 


4 


4 


17 


12/ 8/05 


3/ 4/i9 


18- 9 


2 


2 


18 


2/29/04 


3/ 4/i9 


9- 4 


7 


7 


19 


11/ 9/04 


3/ 4/i9 


13- 3-5 


4 


4 


20 


7/13/04 


3/ 4/i9 


16- 


5 


5 


21 


8/13/04 


3/11/19 


12-11.5 


4 


4 


22 


12/16/05 


3/ 4/19 


14- 6.5 


4 


4 


23 


6/17/05 


3/ 4/i9 


13- 6.5 


4 


4 


24 


9/29/05 


3/ 4/i9 


16- 1.5 


3 


3 


25 


1/22/07 


3/ 4/i9 


14- 4.5 


3 


3 


26 


8/20/04 


3/11/19 


15- 7-5 


4 


5 


27 


12/20/05 


3/11/19 


12- 2 


3 


4 


28 


5/31/04 


3/11/19 


14- 1.5 


5 


5 


29 


11/16/03 


3/11/19 


14- 


4 


4 


30 


12/ 3/05 


3/11/19 


15- 3 


3 


4 


3i 


1 / 12/06 


3/ 4/i9 


13- 1-5 


4 


4 


32 


10/22/05 


3/ 4/19 


12- 5-5 


4 


5 


33 


11/26/05 


3/ 3/i9 


16-10.5 


3 


4 


34 


10/23/03 


3/11/19 


12- 9 


4 


4 


35 


11/ 13/05 


3/ 4/i9 


14- 3 


4 


4 


36 


3/23/06 


3/ 4/i9 


15- 2 


4 


4 


37 


4/15/04 


3/11/19 


13- 


4 


4 


38 


3/12/05 


3/11/19 


12- 2 


5 


6 


39 


6/22/05 


3/11/19 


15- 


4 


6 


40 


9/ 2/06 


4/18/19 


12- 


4 


4 


4i 


3/14/04 


3/11/19 


15- 


4 


4 


42 


7/15/05 


3/11/19 


16- 


4 


4 


43 


7/15/05 


3/11/19 


12- 8 


4 


4 


44 


12/20/04 


3/11/19 


12-10 


4 


4 


45 


12/ 3/06 


3/ 4/i9 


15-10.5 


2 


2 


46 


10/ 4/05 


3/11/19 


12-11.5 


4 


4 


47 


6/18/05 


3/11/19 


10-10 


4 


4 



62 



JAMES LEROY STOCKTON 



Case 

48 
49 
50 
5i 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 

63 

64 

65 
66 

67 

68 



1 
2 

3 
4 
5 
6 

7 
8 

9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 

17 
18 

19 
20 
21 
22 

23 
24 

25 
26 

27 
28 

29 
30 
31 
32 



Born 

6/11/07 
1/ 5/06 

12/17/06 

10/20/03 
3/22/06 
7/20/05 
2/13/05 
4/20/05 
2/16/07 

12/ 8/05 
1/11/06 
7/ 4/06 
6/ 7/06 

11/25/05 
6/13/06 
2/ 6/05 

10/19/05 
7/29/06 
4/ 3/o6 

12/19/07 
1 / 13/07 



8/ 6/06 
7/19/04 
4/28/04 
6/12/06 
8/ 7/06 
7 /7/06 
8/17/04 
1/26/05 
2/15/06 
8/ 7/07 
4/ 2/03 

12/23/02 
9/10/06 
1/ 5/06 
2/ 7/06 
4/ 4/06 
1/ 4/06 
2/ 1/07 

12/29/07 
3/ 1/06 

12/15/07 
1/ 5/06 
9/ 8/06 
4/27/08 
4/24/07 

11/25/04 
9/13/05 
1/ 9/05 
5/26/06 
2/28/07 
2/20/27 
3/ 6/06 



Table I (Continued) 
Seventh Grade 
Tested M.A. 



1st Est. 2nd Est. 



3/11/19 


17- 4-5 


2 


2 


3/ 4/19 


12- 


4 


4 


3/ 4/19 


13-n 


2 


2 


3/11/19 


11- 4 


6 


5 


3/ 4/19 


14- 9 


2 


2 


3/11/19 


13- 6.5 


4 


4 


3/11/19 


11- 8 


5 


5 


3/ 4/19 


11- 8 


5 


5 


3/11/19 


14- 9 


3 


3 


3/11/19 


12- 4 


4 


4 


3/11/19 


14-10 


4 


4 


3/ 4/19 


13- 3-5 


3 


2 


3/11/19 


15- 4.5 


4 


4 


3/11/19 


15- 


4 


4 


3/11/19 


II-IO 


4 


4 


3/11/19 


12- 4 


4 


4 


3/11/19 


12- 4 


4 


4 


3/11/19 


16- 3 


4 


4 


3/ 4/19 


14- 3-5 


4 


4 


3/ 4/19 


13- 7-5 


2 


2 


3/ 4/19 


16- 3 


2 


3 


Sixth Grade 








3/11/19 


12- 4 


4 


6 


3/11/19 


II-IO 


6 


6 


3/11/19 


14- 7.5 


5 


4 


3/27/19 


13- 7-5 


4 


3 


3/n/i9 


13- 9-5 


5 


4 


3/11/19 


12-11.5 


4 


4 


3/11/19 


12- 4 


4 


4 


4/11/19 


12- 


3 


3 


3/11/19 


12- 4 


5 


3 


4/11/19 


16-3 


2 


2 


3/28/19 


13- 4 


6 


5 


3/11/19 


12- 


6 


7 


3/11/19 


12- 8 


4 


5 


3/11/19 


12- 5 


4 


5 


3/11/19 


11- 7 


4 


4 


3/n/i9 


13- 9-5 


4 


4 


3/18/19 


13- 


5 


5 


3/11/19 


11- 


5 


5 


3/11/19 


14- 1.5 


2 


2 


3/18/19 


13- 9 


4 


5 


3/11/19 


11- 6 


4 


5 


3/11/19 


15- 7.5 


2 


2 


3/11/19 


13- 4 


5 


4 


3/11/19 


15-8 


2 


2 


3/n/i9 


16- 1.5 


2 


2 


4/14/19 


11- 4 


7 


5 


3/11/19 


9- 9 


6 


5 


3/27/19 


13-H 


3 


3 


3/27:19 


12-11 


5 


4 


3/11/19 


12- 8 


6 


6 


3/11/19 


14-6 


1 


1 


3/25/19 


12- 8.5 


5 


5 



MODERN METHODS OF MENTAL MEASUREMENT 



63 



Case 



Born 



Table I (Continued) 
Sixth Grade 
Tested M.A. 



1st Est. 2nd Est. 



33 


61 3/06 


3/12/19 


13- 55 


3 


3 


34 


8/ 8/04 


3/18/19 


12-11 


4 


4 


35 


1/16/07 


3/11/19 


15- 


3 


2 


36 


8/25/07 


3/11/19 


15- 4-5 


1 


1 


37 


11/ 4/04 


3/24/19 


14- 3 


2 


2 


38 


5/16/06 


3/18/19 


13-n 


5 


5 


39 


9/27/06 


3/18/19 


11- 5 


5 


5 


40 


6/20/05 


3/21/19 


12- 1 


5 


5 


41 


9/27/05 


3/17/19 


14-10 


2 


3 


42 


3/17/06 


3/1V19 


15-10.5 


2 


3 


43 


2/ 7/07 


3/11/19 


12- 75 


2 


3 


44 


1 / 10/05 


3/11/19 


12- 6 


6 


7 


45 


3/ 6/06 


3/24/19 


15-6 


4 


2 


46 


1/27/07 


3/11/19 


13- 7.5 


4 


3 


47 


7/ 6/06 


3/18/19 


14-10 


4 


3 


48 


3/ 3/07 


3/n/i9 


10- 9 


4 


4 


49 


9/16/06 


3/11/19 


11- 2 


5 


4 


50 


7/15/05 


3/18/19 


II-IO 


4 


5 


51 


5/18/07 


3/11/19 


14- 3-5 


2 


2 


52 


11/25/06 


3/24/19 


12-11.5 


4 


3 


53 


3/ 1/08 


3/n/i9 


15- 7-5 


2 


1 


54 


5/12/06 


3/31/10 


15- 4-5 


2 


2 


55 


5/23/07 


3/11/19 


13- 9.5 


3 


3 


56 


2/ 9/08 


3/27/19 


10- 


2 


2 


57 


1/ 3/06 


3/18/19 


16- 7-5 


2 


2 


58 


9/30/07 


3/20/19 


13- 8 


3 


3 


59 


12/29/06 


3/26/19 


11- 9-5 


6 


6 


60 


5/31/06 


3/27/19 


12- 8 


5 


5 


61 


10/ 1/06 


3/27/19 


11- 4 


5 


4 


62 


7/10/07 


3/24/19 


II-IO 


5 


5 


63 


7/25/07 


3/18/19 


14- 1-5 


3 


2 


64 


9/25/06 


3/20/19 


12- 5-5 


2 


4 


65 


6/ 5/07 


3/24/19 


15-6 


5 


4 


66 


11/29/07 


3/24/19 


11- 4 


4 


4 


67 


11/ 19/06 


3/21/19 


11- 4 


7 


6 


68 


10/23/05 


3/27/19 


9-6 


6 


4 


69 


6/ 4/07 


3/24/19 


12-11.5 


4 


4 


70 


2/ 7/05 


3/24/19 


II-IO 


6 


4 


7i 


11/10/05 


3/24/19 


14- 6.5 


3 


3 


72 


3/ 8/07 


3/24/19 


12- 4 


2 


3 


73 


10/27/04 


3/24/19 
Fifth Grade 


10- 8 


6 


5 


1 


2/16/08 


3/18/19 


11- 8 


3 


3 


2 


10/ 4/06 


3/20/19 


12- 1.5 


4 


3 


3 


6/15/06 


3/27/19 


10- 9 


5 


5 


4 


3/ 4/06 


5/i3/i9 


10- 4 


5 


4 


5 


7/25/06 


5/ 2/19 


10- 2 


5 


5 


6 


9/17/06 


3/27/19 


11- 8 


3 


3 


7 


9/29/08 


3/21/19 


16- 3 


2 


2 


8 


5/11/08 


3/18/19 


11- 4 


2 


2 


9 


10/14/06 


3/27/19 


15- 9-5 


4 


4 


10 


5/ 5/o6 


3/18/19 


15- i.5 


3 


3 


11 


2/ 6/06 


3/27/19 


12- 3-5 


4 


5 


12 


7/ 2/04 


5/ 5/i9 


10- 6 


6 


6 


13 


12/ 1/06 


3/26/19 


11- 3-5 


4 


4 



64 



JAMES LEROY STOCKTON 



Case 



Born 



14 


1 / 14/07 


15 


10/27/04 


16 


1/20/08 


17 


10/ 3/06 


18 


10/30/07 


19 


4/15/07 


20 


6/ 5/07 


21 


8/26/04 


22 


2/20/09 


23 


3/13/07 


24 


3/13/08 


25 


9/17/07 


26 


7/11/07 


27 


10/12/05 


28 


1/24/09 


29 


12/ 2/07 


30 


10/28/07 


31 


8/22/05 


32 


7/28/08 


33 


6/19/08 


34 


5/27/06 


35 


6/13/07 


36 


2/ 8/07 


37 


3/ 1/08 


38 


8/23/07 


39 


7/ 7/07 


40 


7/21/08 


41 


4/28/08 


42 


1/10/06 


43 


5/15/04 


44 


10/18/08 


45 


9/18/07 


46 


4/17/09 


47 


7/ 2/08 


48 


5/19/07 


49 


2/ 1/09 


50 


7/18/08 


51 


3/23/06 


52 


7/16/06 


53 


2/22/07 


54 


6/ 8/08 


55 


6/ 1/07 


56 


4/15/08 


57 


1/12/06 


58 


4/ 3/09 


59 


10/ 8/06 


60 


10/17/07 


61 


3/ 4/08 


62 


8/12/08 


63 


3/29/09 


64 


4/13/08 


65 


10/18/08 


66 


7/10/08 


67 


5/26/08 


68 


2/20/08 


69 


6/23/06 



Table I (Continued) 






Fifth Grade 








Tested 


M.A. 


1st Est. 


2nd E 


3/27/19 


10- 8 


4 


4 


4/29/19 


11- 8 


5 


5 


3/25/19 


11- 


4 


4 


3/27/19 


10- 6 


4 


4 


3/25/19 


13- 6.5 


2 


2 


3/25/19 


13- 9 


3 


3 


3/18/19 


12-11.5 


2 


3 


3/18/19 


12- 7.5 


5 


6 


3/25/19 


15- 4-5 


1 


1 


3/26/19 


11- 8 


2 


3 


3/18/19 


11- 4 


3 


3 


3/25/19 


11- 


4 


3 


4/30/19 


11- 6 


4 


4 


5/ 2/19 


11- 6 


4 


4 


4/30/19 


13- 9-5 


2 


2 


4/30/19 


10- 9 


3 


4 


5/ 2/19 


12-11.5 


3 


3 


5/ 2/19 


12- 


5 


4 


5/ 2/19 


12- 2 


3 


3 


5/I4/I9 


11- 


4 


3 


5/ 1/19 


12- 3.5 


4 


3 


4/29/19 


12- 4 


3 


3 


5/ 2/19 


11- 1 


4 


4 


5/ 3/i9 


12- 1.5 


4 


3 


4/30/19 


10- 8 


5" 


4 


4/30/19 


12- 9.5 


4 


4 


4/30/19 


11- 5 


3 


3 


5/ 2/19 


13- 9 


3 


3 


5/ 2/19 


13- 4 


4 


4 


5/ 5/i9 


9- 3 


6 


6 


5/12/19 


12- 3.5 


4 


4 


5/ 2/19 


12- 1.5 


4 


3 


5/ 5/i9 


14- 5 


2 


3 


5/ 2/19 


12- 


5 


5 


5/ 3/i9 


13- 5 


4 


4 


5/ 2/19 


12- 7-5 


4 


3 


5/ 7/i9 


11- 8 


4 


3 


5/ 6/19 


10- 


4 


4 


4/29/19 


11- 4 


5 


5 


5/ 7/i9 


11- 4-5 


5 


5 


5/ 5/i9 


14-10.5 


4 


3 


4/28/19 


9-10 


5 


5 


4/23/19 


11-11.5 


4 


4 


5/ 8/19 


11- 3-5 


5 


5 


5/ 5/i9 


10- 8 


4 


4 


5/ 6/19 


10- 8 


5 


5 


5/ 6/19 


11- 8 


5 


5 


5/ 5/i9 


9-10 


4 


5 


5/ 6/19 


10- 


4 


5 


4/23/19 


9- 7 


4 


4 


5/ 6/19 


10-10 


5 


5 


4/21/19 


9-6 


6 


6 


5/ 2/19 


11- 8 


4 


4 


5/ 1/19 


10- 5 


4 


3 


4/28/19 


10- 5 


4 


4 


5/ 8/19 


9-8 


5 


5 



MODERN METHODS OF MENTAL MEASUREMENT 



65 



Case 
70 

7i 
72 

73 

74 
75 
76 
77 
78 

79 
8o 
8i 



i 

2 

3 

4 
5 
6 

7 
8 

9 

10 

ii 

12 

13 
14 
15 
16 

17 
18 

19 

20 
21 
22 
23 

24 

25 
26 

27 
28 

29 
30 
3i 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 

4i 
42 





Table I (Continued) 






Fifth Grade 






Born 


Tested 


M.A. 


istE 


1/ 9/08 


5/ 5/i9 


10- 8 


5 


9/30/08 


5/ 2/19 


17- 1.5 


3 


6/20/08 


5/ 2/19 


11- 


3 


11/19/00 


5/ 7/i9 


11- 3-5 


4 


10/ 2>07 


4/30/19 


9- 7 


5 


2/22/08 


5/ 3/i9 


11- 2 


4 


12/30/07 


5/ 2/19 


11- 8 


4 


1/29/07 


5/ 1/19 


11- 6 


4 


3/ 7/08 


4/23/19 


10- 6 


5 


4/30/07 


5/ 5/i9 


10- 8 


3 


3/ 6/09 


5/ 5/19 


11- 4 


4 


10/23/07 


5/ 5/19 
Fourth Grade 


10- 8 


4 


10/ 5/08 


4/23/19 


11- 5 


5 


10/27/08 


4/29/19 


9- 3 


5 


3/29/09 


4/24/19 


12- 6.5 


2 


4/ 9/08 . 


4/28/19 


11- 8 


3 


9/28/08 


4/23:19 


13- 3-5 


2 


8/23/08 


4/21/19 


11- 


4 


I 1/2 1/08 


4/21/19 


16- 4.5 


1 


11/11/07 


5/ 7/i9 


13- 


3 


4/29/09 


4/21/ 19 


12- 7-5 


3 


1/25/08 


4/29/19 


11- 1 


6 


3/31/08 


4/23/19 


9- 9 


6 


6/ 5/08 


4/30/19 


12- 2 


2 


12/30/07 


4/23/19 


16- 


2 


5/19/07 


5/i7/i9 


13- 


2 


7/12/08 


5/ 7/i9 


11- 


3 


12/13/06 


5/ 6/19 


9- 3 


5 


11/27/08 


5/ 6/19 


9- 3 


5 


2/22/10 


5/ 7/i9 


13- 6.5 


1 


5/ 3/09 


5/ 5/i9 


10- 4 


4 


2/12/07 


5/13/19 


11- 


6 


5/18/08 


4/22/19 


10- 2 


6 


5/ 4/07 


4/29/19 


9- 6 


6 


12/ 9/08 


5/ 7/i9 


14- 9 


4 


7/24/08 


5/ 7/i9 


11- 


4 


12/ 5/06 


4/29/19 


8- 6 


5 


8/26/04 


4/21/19 


10- 


7 


12/21/06 


4/22/19 


8-9 


7 


10/ 6/07 


4/23/19 


8- 6 


5 


10/ 6/07 


4/23/19 


8- 6 


6 


9/ 7/o8 


4/29/19 


12- 1.5 


5 


1/22/08 


4/29/19 


10- 4 


5 


5/14/08 


4/22/19 


9-11 


4 


6/13/09 


4/23/19 


11-11.5 


4 


8/27/09 


4/22/19 


9- 4 


4 


7/ 6/06 


4/29/19 


9-11 


5 


5/23/09 


4/21/19 


9- 6 


3 


4/22/09 


4/21/ 19 


11- 


3 


10/12/09 


4/18/19 


10- 8 


3 


5/ 8/08 


4/ 14/ 1 9 


10- 7 


4 


8/13/09 


4/i7/i9 


11- 6 


2 


1/ 9/08 


4/22/19 


9- 7 


4 


10/12/07 


4/15/19 


8-9 


6 



2nd Est. 

5 
2 

3 
4 
5 
4 
4 
4 
5 
3 
3 
3 



5 
5 
2 

3 
2 

4 

1 

3 

2 

6 
6 
2 
2 
2 
3 
5 
5 
1 

4 

5 
6 

6 
4 
4 
5 
7 
7 
5 
6 

4 
4 
4 
4 
4 
4 
3 
3 
3 
4 
2 

4 
7 



66 



JAMES LEROY STOCKTON 



Table I (Continued) 



Case 

43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 

63 
64 

65 
66 

67 
68 





Fourth Grade 








Born 


Tested 


M.A. 


1st Est. 


2nd E 


10/16/08 


4/ 1 6/ 19 


12- 5-5 


4 


3 


2/16/09 


4/15/19 


8- 8 


6 


6 


12/10/08 


4/15/19 


11- 


4 


4 


5/24/10 


4/16/19 


10- 4 


6 


6 


11/ 2/09 


4/15/19 


10- 7 


6 


6 


7/11/08 


4/i5/i9 


9-1 1 


5 


5 


10/29/08 


4/21/ 19 


10- 1 


3 


3 


1/15/09 


4/i7/i9 


11- 7-5 


3 


3 


9/12/09 


4/30/19 


10-10 


4 


5 


7/ 2/08 


4/30/19 


10- 8 


4 


4 


8/15/09 


4/17/19 


13- 3 


2 


2 


12/13/09 


3/26/19 


12-10 


2 


2 


4/29/09 


4/21/19 


10- 8 


4 


3 


4/19/09 


4/14/19 


9-6 


4 


4 


12/29/09 


4/17/19 


10- 9 


2 


2 


3/1 1/09 


4/18/19 


9-6 


3 


2 


12/12/08 


4/ 18/ 19 


10- 4 


4 


3 


5/ 5/io 


4/16/19 


10- 2 


5 


5 


7/1 1/09 


4/ 1 7/ 19 


8-9 


5 


5 


11/ 6/05 


4/i5/i9 


11- 


7 


7 


6/29/08 


4/17/19 


11- 5 


4 


4 


2/27/08 


4/16/19 


10- 1 


4 


5 


11/ 1 1/07 


4/21/19 


9-6 


4 


4 


10/10/09 


4/16/19 


9- 9 


5 


5 


2/ 3/09 


4/16/19 


9- 9 


4 


5 


5/30/09 


4/21/19 


10- 1 


4 


5 



Table II shows the distribution of the resulting intelligence 
quotients. (See page 79 for reason for selection of interval.) 



Table II 
Distribution of 364 Binet I. Q.'s. 



— to 59 


60 to 75 


76 to 91 


92 to 107 


108 to 123 


124 to 139 


140 — 





15 


83 


137 


93 


23 


13 



This table shows that the cases used constituted a very sym- 
metrical distribution. This distribution was entirely the result of 
chance selection. The group below 60 I. Q. was not represented, 
of course, for intelligence of that grade is usually eliminated from 
the public school. The slight preponderance of high I. Q.'s was, 
perhaps, to be expected in the type of school which these children 
attend. 

The work of determining the intelligence quotients was very 
carefully done. The tests were given partly by the writer and 
partly by other examiners, all of whom were trained by him. A 



MODERN METHODS OF MENTAL MEASUREMENT 67 

common exact procedure was rigidly followed, the responses of 
the children were written down verbatim, and the writer rescored 
all papers as carefully and consistently as possible. Where known 
irregularities of any kind developed the test was discarded. 

Previous experience in several schools led to a very careful 
checking of the chronological ages of the children before such 
ages were used as a basis for the computation of intelligence quo- 
tients. It is a common thing in any public school to find error in 
from 10 per cent to 15 per cent of records of chronological ages, 
even when such ages have been furnished by parents. This 
matter was followed up very carefully, the ages were obtained 
from two or three different angles, discrepancies noted, and per- 
sonal work done to establish the facts. 

After the intelligence quotients had been computed on the basis 
of the rescored papers, and the rechecked chronological ages, these 
quotients were checked by correlation with teachers' estimates of 
intelligence. For original data on estimates see Table II. The 
estimates had been obtained previous to the giving of the Binet 
tests. The procedure used in securing the estimates utilized the 
following instructions : 

In estimating intelligence you are asked to grade on a scale of 
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, as follows: 

1 = Very superior 

2 = Superior 

3 = Somewhat above average 

4 = Average 

5 = Somewhat below average 

6 = Inferior 

7 = Very inferior 

Be sure to take age into account. Compare the child with what 
you consider to be the average for children of his own age. 

Avoid grouping your estimates in one or two groups. Ordi- 
narily the 4 group (average) will be the largest single group. In 
the majority of classrooms group 5 should be approximately equal 
to group 3, group 6 equal to group 2, and group 7 equal to 
group 1. 

Your estimates will be held as absolutely confidential, therefore 
do not hesitate to place the child in the group where he belongs, 
however low that may be. 



68 JAMES LEROY STOCKTON 

The teachers did not know that they would be asked to make 
these estimates again; but about one week later they were asked 
to repeat the process, rating each child with no opportunity for 
comparison with the former rating. Then Pearson correlations 
were made for each grade ( i ) between Binet I. Q. and the grade 
teacher's first estimate of intelligence, and (2) between Binet 
I. Q. and the same teacher's second estimate of the same pupils. 
The results of these correlations are shown in Table III. The co- 
efficients are relatively high, due perhaps (1) to the care with 
which the I. Q.'s were determined, and (2) to unusual ability in 
estimation on the part of the teachers. 

Table III 

Correlation of Binet I. Q. with Teachers' 

Estimates of Intelligence. 



Grade 


1st Est. 


2nd Est. 


8 


.70 


75 


7 


•77 


.68 


6 


.70 


.69 


5 


.66 


.68 


4 


.72 


•71 


All Grades 


.69 


.69 



The probable error of the above shown coefficients is approxi- 
mately .04 for all except the last, where it drops to less than half 
that amount. On the basis of the total showing made in the data 
it was concluded that the determination of the general intelligence 
of the subjects had been reliably made, and that it was safe to 
use the results as a criterion in the remainder of the study. 

The next step was to give to the same subjects a group intelli- 
gence test consisting of twenty single tests, nine of which were 
predominantly of the perceptual type, and eleven predominantly 
of the symbol type.* Before these tests could be given the number 
of subjects in the group had been reduced, by graduation and 
other factors, to 222. The raw data for the group tests of these 
222 subjects is shown in Table IV. The mental ages given in the 
table are rectified mental ages. They have been brought up to 

* Copies of these tests, and also of the tests used in the lower grade investi- 
gation, are filed at Stanford University. 



MODERN METHODS OF MENTAL MEASUREMENT 



69 



date by the usual method based upon ( 1 ) the difference between 
the date of the Binet and the date of the other test, and (2) the 
theory that the I. Q. (relation of chronological and mental age) 
remains approximately constant. 















Table IV, 


A 












Raw Data for the Nine '. 


Perceptual Test 


s. 








Eighth Grade. 






Group A 




Group B 






Case 


12345 


Total 


1234 


Total 


Total 


IQ CA MA 


40 


16 


8 


32 i 


[8 20 


94 


4 


10 


9 


9 


32 


126 


99 


15-2 


15-0 


5i 


15 


9 


30 ] 


5 8 


77 


7 


9 


9 


13 


38 


115 


98 


17-0 


15-8 


54 


13 


11 


39 l 


■8 9 


90 


8 


8 


10 


15 


4i 


131 


102 


14-8 


14-10 


56 


13 


11 


39 i 


8 7 


88 


10 


5 


9 


15 


39 


127 


93 


15-6 


14-4 


59 


16 


11 


37 l 


820 


102 


10 


10 


9 


10 


39 


141 


104 


14-2 


14-8 


60 


13 


7 


3i 1 


7 6 


74 


9 


7 


9 


15 


40 


114 


97 


16-4 


15-10 


63 


14 


9 


35 1 


8 7 


83 


10 


10 


9 


7 


36 


119 


79 


17-0 


12-9 


65 


15 


11 


34 1 


7 14 


9i 


6 


9 


8 


11 


34 


125 


106 


14-6 


15-4 


66 


13 


8 


35 1 


815 


89 


10 


7 


9 


12 


38 


127 


97 


13-11 


13-5 


7i 


13 


10 


39 1 


8 16 


96 


9 


7 


8 


14 


38 


134 


81 


15-2 


12-4 


72 


13 


12 


39 1 


7 14 


95 


10 


9 


10 


15 


44 


139 


96 


15-10 


14-3 








Seventh Gn 


ide 






2 


14 


6 


35 1 


6 12 


83 


9 


8 


10 


11 


38 


121 


in 


14-2 


15-8 


3 


16 


13 


37 1 


817 


IOI 


9 


10 


10 


15 


44 


145 


121 


13-9 


16-7 


4 


15 


9 


30 1 


1 16 


81 


10 


8 


6 


7 


31 


112 


93 


15-8 


14-7 


5 


15 


12 


39 1 


7 17 


100 


10 


10 


10 


14 


44 


144 


116 


14-7 


16-10 


6 


15 


9 


32 1 


5i8 


89 


9 


10 


9 


9 


37 


126 


93 


17-2 


14-10 


7 


14 


10 


29 1 


5 9 


77 


10 


8 


10 


12 


40 


117 


no 


14-1 


15-5 


11 


16 


9 


37 1 


813 


93 


10 


9 


9 


12 


40 


133 


109 


14-11 


16-5 


12 


16 


11 


35 1 


7 13 


92 


10 


10 


10 


13 


43 


135 


121 


14-0 


16-11 


13 


15 


12 


38i 


8 12 


95 


10 


10 


9 


14 


43 


138 


123 


13-3 


16-3 


14 


13 


11 


32 1 


1 16 


83 


10 


9 


9 


12 


40 


123 


93 


16-0 


15-0 


17 


15 


11 


381 


6 16 


96 


10 


10 


10 


12 


42 


138 


141 


14-0 


19-9 


18 


12 


9 


31 1 


4 8 


74 


9 


6 


8 


12 


35 


109 


62 


15-10 


9-10 


19 


15 


12 


32 1 


820 


97 


10 


10 


10 


12 


42 


139 


93 


I5-I 


14-0 


21 


12 


12 


35 1 


5 17 


91 


10 


10 


8 


13 


4i 


132 


89 


15-4 


13-7 


22 


15 


11 


37 1 


8 14 


95 


10 


9 


8 


15 


42 


137 


no 


13-n 


15-4 


23 


16 


9 


26 1 


5 13 


79 


8 


8 


9 


10 


35 


114 


99 


14-5 


14-3 


24 


15 


10 


28 1 


5 11 


79 


9 


10 


9 


10 


3S 


"7 


119 


14-3 


16-11 


25 


15 


7 


27 1 


8 16 


83 


9 


10 


9 


14 


42 


125 


118 


12-11 


15-2 


26 


14 


10 


361 


6 18 


94 


9 


9 


9 


14 


4i 


135 


107 


15-3 


16-5 


27 


14 


9 


26 1 


5 10 


74 


7 


9 


8 


8 


32 


106 


92 


14-0 


12-10 


30 


13 


11 


39 1 


8 12 


93 


10 


10 


9 


15 


44 


137 


115 


14-0 


16-1 


3i 


13 


10 


32 1 


815 


88 


10 


8 


9 


12 


39 


127 


100 


13-11 


13-10 


33 


14 


10 


35 1 


820 


97 


10 


10 


10 


13 


43 


140 


127 


14-0 


17-9 


35 


14 


9 


361 


8 11 


88 


10 


10 


10 


13 


43 


131 


106 


14-1 


15-0 


37 


15 


9 


25 1 


8 11 


78 


10 


8 


8 


8 


34 


112 


88 


15-8 


13-8 


38 


15 


7 


32 1 


9 


73 


10 


8 


9 


6 


33 


106 


88 


14-9 


12-n 


39 


15 


10 


24 1 


8 12 


79 


9 


8 


10 


10 


37 


116 


109 


14-5 


15-10 


40 


13 


9 


26 1 


3 11 


72 


6 


8 


3 


9 


26 


98 


95 


13-3 


12-8 


4i 

42 


14 
16 


7 
8 


29 1 

37 1 


6 14 
8 17 


80 
96 


9 
9 


9 
10 


10 
10 


13 
13 


41 
42 


121 
138 


100 
117 


15-9 
14-5 


15-9 
16-10 


43 


14 


7 


22 1 


7 11 


71 


10 


9 


9 


13 


4i 


112 


93 


14-5 


13-4 


45 


15 


12 


32 1 


8 13 


90 


10 


10 


9 


11 


40 


130 


130 


13-0 


16-10 


46 


16 


9 


28 1 


S 13I 


84 


8 


10 


9 


12 


39 


123 


97 


14-2 


13-8 



70 



JAMES LEROY STOCKTON 



Table IV, A (Continued) 
Seventh Grade 



Group A 
Case 123 



47 
48 
49 
50 
5i 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
60 
61 
62 

63 
64 
65 
66 

67 



39 
34 
38 
39 
34 
35 
37 
30 
3i 
35 
39 
34 
39 
39 
26 

25 
3i 

27 

35 
36 



Total 

85 
84 
96 

92 
87 
93 
99 
89 
86 

79 
91 

97 
98 
95 
75 
69 
79 
83 
93 
97 



1 

10 

10 

8 

10 

9 
10 
10 

9 
10 
10 
10 
10 
10 
9 
9 
10 
10 

9 
10 
10 



Group B 
2 3 4 



Total Total 



9 


8 


10 


10 


10 


10 


7 


8 


14 


8 


8 


13 


9 


10 


10 


8 


10 


14 


5 


8 


12 


8 


10 


10 


6 


7 


14 


6 


8 


9 


7 


9 


14 


10 


10 


14 


10 


9 


15 


10 


9 


10 


9 


10 


10 


3 


7 


9 


7 


8 


14 


10 


10 


9 


7 


7 


11 


9 


8 


14 



37 
40 

37 
39 
38 
42 
35 
37 
37 
33 
4o 
44 
44 
39 
38 
29 

39 
38 
35 
41 



122 
124 
133 
131 
125 
135 
134 
126 

123 
112 

131 
141 
142 
133 
113 
98 
118 
121 
128 
138 



IQ 
80 

148 

91 
114 

74 
114 

99 
S3 

84 
122 

93 
113 
121 
112 

93 

88 

92 

128 

no 

122 



CA MA 



14-5 
12-6 

13-n 
12-11 
16-1 
13-8 

14-5 

14-10 

14-8 

12-10 

14-0 

13-n 

13-6 

14-0 

13-6 

14-10 

14-2 

13-4 
13-8 
ii-n 



i-5 

8-5 
2-8 

4-9 
2-1 

5-7 



■3 

■4 
■4 
■7 
•0 
■8 

■3 
10 



2-6 
3-0 
3-o 

7-2 
5-i 
4-5 



I 


14 


10 


39 


15 


2 


2 


15 


8 


20 


17 


14 


3 


12 


9 


37 


18 


16 


6 


14 


10 


33 


18 


15 


7 


n 


10 


28 


16 


12 


8 


16 


9 


3i 


17 


13 


9 


13 


8 


37 


15 


18 


10 


16 


10 


35 


18 


16 


12 


10 


7 


3i 


12 


14 


13 


16 


6 


30 


13 


n 


14 


16 


14 


39 


18 


20 


15 


n 


9 


35 


18 


16 


16 


15 


10 


37 


13 


14 


17 


16 


12 


39 


18 


17 


18 


14 


10 


39 


18 


n 


21 


14 


8 


39 


18 


12 


22 


16 


n 


37 


18 


14 


23 


13 


8 


24 


16 


16 


24 


15 


12 


39 


17 


15 


25 


14 


10 


32 


17 


16 


26 


12 


9 


34 


18 


12 


27 


12 


9 


37 


18 


14 


30 


16 


10 


35 


n 


17 


32 


12 


8 


30 


16 


10 


35 


14 


7 


28 


18 


10 


36 


15 


9 


37 


14 


n 


38 


15 


n 


37 


18 


14 


39 


13 


9 


29 


14 


6 



80 

74 
92 
90 10 

77 9 



96 

77 



89 
76 

77 
86 

95 
7i 



Sixth Grade 

5 
6 

9 



91 9 
95 10 
74 8 
76 8 

107 9 

89 10 

89 10 

102 9 

92 10 
91 9 



98 10 
89 10 
85 



10 

7 

10 
8 
9 
9 
9 
10 



8 


9 


9 


10 


9 


14 


9 


8 


9 


10 


8 


8 


10 


6 


9 


9 


10 


9 


10 


9 


14 


10 


9 


14 





5 


14 


10 


12 


13 


9 


9 


15 


9 


10 


10 


10 


9 


10 


10 


10 


15 


6 


6 


15 


9 


7 


13 


10 


9 


8 


10 


9 


9 


10 


10 


13 


9 


10 


13 


7 


9 


9 


5 


7 


12 


8 


10 


13 


9 


8 


7 


10 


9 


n 


10 


9 


15 


9 


9 


13 


10 


4 


10 



31 


in 


39 


113 


35 


127 


36 


126 


34 


in 


36 


122 


42 


133 


43 


138 


27 


101 


4i 


117 


42 


149 


39 


128 


39 


128 


44 


146 


37 


129 


38 


129 


36 


132 


37 


114 


43 


141 


42 


131 


35 


120 


3i 


119 


41 


130 


32 


108 


39 


116 


43 


129 


40 


135 


34 


105 



98 


13-4 




81 


15-5 




99 


15-7 




102 


13-5 




85 


15-4 




86 


14-10 




94 


13-10 




140 


12-4 




74 


17-0 




101 


13-3 




94 


13-H 




88 


13-10 




107 


13-8 




98 


13-n 




9i 


12-10 




102 


12-0 




120 


13-10 


1 


107 


13-3 




143 


11-8 


1 


135 


12-8 




79 


15-0 




72 


14-3 


1 


105 


12-10 




98 


13-9 




123 


12-11 




134 


12-3 


1 


108 


13-7 




91 


13-3 





3-1 

2-6 

5-4. 

3-8 

3-0 

2-8 

3-1 

7-3 

2-0 

3-5 
3-2 
2-3 
4-7 
3-9 
1-8 

2-3 

6-6 

4-2 

6-8 

7-0 

1-10 

0-4 

3-5 



4 
10 

4 
9 
1 



MODERN METHODS OF MENTAL MEASUREMENT 71 



Takle IV, A (Continued) 

















Sixth 


Gr 


ad 


2 










Group A 




Group B 








Case 12345 


Total 


1234 


Total 


Total ] 


41 ! 


15 


11 


39 


18 


11 


94 


9 


9 


9 


14 


4i 


135 


no 


14-3 


15-8 


42 


10 


11 


37 


18 


17 


93 


10 


8 


7 


14 


39 


132 


122 


13-9 


l6-8 


43 


12 


9 


36 


16 


16 


89 


9 


8 


8 


9 


34 


123 


104 


12-10 


13-4 


44 


15 


10 


29 


16 


9 


79 


9 


9 


10 


8 


36 


115 


88 


14- 1 1 


13-2 


45 


15 


10 


32 


18 


10 


85 


10 


8 


10 


13 


4i 


126 


119 


13-9 


16-4 


46 


14 


7 


28 


14 


13 


76 


10 


8 


8 


9 


35 


in 


in 


12-n 


14-5 


47 


8 


8 


25 


15 


11 


67 


6 


8 


7 


9 


30 


97 


93 


13-5 


12-7 


49 


14 


10 


30 


15 


12 


81 


10 


9 





9 


28 


109 


89 


13-3 


II-IO 


50 


14 


8 


3i 


12 


15 


80 


9 


8 


8 


14 


39 


119 


^7 


14-5 


12-6 


5i 


15 


12 


29 


14 


10 


80 


9 


8 


10 


9 


36 


116 


121 


12-7 


15-2 


52 


15 


7 


23 


11 


17 


73 


10 


9 


9 


6 


34 


107 


105 


13-1 


13-8 


54 


14 


8 


27 


17 


18 


84 


8 


9 


8 


12 


37 


121 


119 


13-7 


16-2 


55 


16 


8 


24 


18 


14 


80 


8 


9 


7 


11 


35 


115 


117 


12-7 


14-7 


56 


12 


8 


33 


13 


II 


77 


10 


4 


7 


11 


32 


109 


97 


1 1-9 


10-8 


57 


14 


7 


39 


14 


13 


87 


6 


9 


7 


11 


33 


120 


126 


13-n 


17-6 


58 


11 


7 


19 


18 


17 


72 


7 


8 


3 





18 


90 


119 


12-3 


14-6 


59 


12 


6 


26 


7 


12 


63 


9 


10 


8 


9 


36 


99 


98 


12-n 


12-5 


61 


8 


7 


25 


10 


12 


62 


10 


5 


8 


12 


35 


97 


9i 


13-2 


ii-n 


66 


13 


9 


39 


18 


14 


93 


10 


7 


10 


11 


38 


131 


100 


12-1 


12-1 


67 


12 


9 


27 


14 


8 


70 


8 


9 


4 


12 


33 


103 


92 


13-1 


12-0 


70 


13 


9 


39 


17 


10 


88 


9 


8 





8 


25 


113 


82 


14-10 


12-5 


7i 


15 


13 


30 


18 


18 


94 


8 


9 


10 


15 


42 


136 


109 


14- 1 


15-4 


72 


12 


12 


30 


13 


20 


S7 


9 


9 


8 


11 


37 


124 


102 


12-9 


13-1 


73 


1 7 


7 


34 


17 


10 


75 


8 


6 


7 


9 


30 


105 


74 


15-2 


1 1-3 






Fifth Grac 


le 






Group A 




Group ] 


3 






Case 12345 


Total 


1234 


Total 


Total 


IQ CA MA 


1 


7 


8 


30 


11 


14 


70 


9 


9 


8 


11 


37 


107 


105 


II-IO 


12-5 


2 


14 





29 


18 


17 


78 


9 


8 


9 


9 


35 


113 


97 


13-3 


12-10 


3 


13 


8 


28 


13 


14 


76 


8 


6 


5 


12 


3i 


107 


84 


13-5 


1 1-4 


5 


9 


7 


22 


10 


16 


64 


9 


10 


8 


10 


37 


101 


80 


13-4 


10-7 


6 


13 


9 


25 


12 


II 


70 


9 


8 


9 


11 


37 


107 


94 


13-2 


12-4 


7 


15 


7 


26 


14 


13 


75 


9 


9 


9 


9 


36 


in 


152 


ii-3 


17-4 


8 


14 


9 


29 


18 


6 


76 


9 


9 


8 


12 


38 


114 


105 


11-7 


12-1 


9 


14 


8 


30 


13 


17 


82 


7 


10 


10 


4 


3i 


113 


127 


13-1 


16-6 


10 


11 


8 


3i 


18 


17 


85 


10 


9 


10 


15 


44 


129 


117 


13-7 


15-H 


11 


14 


7 


28 


8 


11 


68 


8 


7 


7 


6 


28 


96 


93 


13-10 


12-10 


15 


12 


7 


28 


11 


8 


66 


9 


5 


9 


8 


31 


87 


80 


15-1 


12-1 


16 


14 


8 


27 


17 


6 


72 


9 


9 


7 


12 


37 


104 


98 


II-IO 


11-8 


17 


14 


6 


30 


14 


14 


78 


9 


9 


6 


11 


35 


113 


84 


13-3 


1 1-2 


18 


14 


7 


27 


17 


18 


83 


8 


8 


7 


11 


34 


117 


118 


I2-I 


14-3 


19 


12 


8 


28 


14 


14 


76 


9 


10 


8 


4 


3i 


107 


116 


12-7 


14-6 


20 


12 


10 


22 


16 


15 


75 


10 


8 


10 


8 


36 


in 


no 


12-6 


13-9 


21 


15 


9 


27 


15 


18 


84 


9 


9 


9 


10 


37 


121 


86 


15-3 


13-3 


22 


14 


8 


32 


17 


11 


82 


9 


10 


8 


10 


37 


119 


151 


10-9 


16-3 


23 


13 


9 


32 


11 


15 


80 


10 


9 


9 


9 


37 


117 


9* 


12-9 


12-5 


24 


12 


7 


30 


IS 


16 


80 


10 


9 


10 


13 


42 


121 


103 


1 1-9 


12-1 


25 


14 


12 


35 


18 


14 


97 


10 


10 


9 


13 


42 


139 


95 


12-2 


1 1-8 


26 


13 


9 


27 


11 


10 


70 


9 


5 


7 


5 


30 


100 


97 


12-6 


12-2 


27 


13 


9 


31 


12 


14 


79 


9 


5 


6 


IC 


30 


109 


8= 


14-2 


12-0 



72 



JAMES LEROY STOCKTON 



Group A 
Case i 2 3 



29 
30 
3i 
32 
33 
35 
36 
38 
39 
40 

41 

44 
45 
d6 

47 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
67 
68 

69 
70 
7i 
74 

75 
78 
79 



12 

13 
12 

13 
14 
14 
15 
12 

14 
13 

9 
14 
14 
14 

9 
14 
15 
12 

13 
13 
14 
12 

13 
15 
16 
10 
13 
14 
11 

15 
13 
15 
9 
14 
10 

14 
14 
13 



27 

25 
21 

24 
33 

28 

25 
34 

22 

39 
24 
20 
28 
26 
26 
22 
27 

39 
20 

26 

27 

27 

25 
28 
26 
23 
25 
23 
25 
32 
37 
37 
3i 
21 
26 
36 
27 
35 



Table IV, A (Continued) 
Fifth Grade (Continued) 

Group B 
Total 1234 Total 



79 

75 
62 

67 
76 
81 

69 
78 
68 
91 
70 
70 
78 
76 
76 
63 
70 

84 
60 

59 
60 
78 
71 
S7 
77 
62 
70 
70 

54 
82 

87 
84 
61 
61 
49 
83 
84 
75 



10 
10 

5 
7 
9 
8 

9 

9 

8 

10 

10 

9 

9 

10 

10 



9 
10 

9 



9 
9 

8 

5 
6 

7 
10 

7 
5 
6 
8 
10 
9 
7 



10 



10 



31 
4o 
32 

34 
27 
42 
29 
35 
31 
33 
36 
34 
33 
3$ 
33 
24 
32 
27 
35 
35 
28 

33 
30 
39 
35 
3i 
38 
33 
31 
38 
30 
36 
35 
39 
37 
36 
38 
36 



Total 
no 
115 

94 
101 
103 
123 

98 
113 

99 
124 
106 
104 
in 
114 
109 

87 

102 

in 

95 

94 

88 

in 

101 

126 

112 

93 
108 
103 

85 
120 

117 
120 

96 
100 

86 
119 
122 
in 



IQ 

94 
113 

88 

113 

100 

194 

90 

9i 

108 

106 

126 

116 

105 

143 

in 

76 

89 

93 

136 

82 

109 

85 
106 

84 
88 

93 
95 
98 
9i 
95 
93 
75 
94 
162 

S3 
100 

95 
89 



CA MA 



12-1 
12-1 

14-3 
1 1-4 

11-6 

12-5 
12-10 
12-4 
12-6 

ii-5 

11-7 

11-2 
12-2 
10-8 

ii-5 
13-8 
i3-5 
13-9 
11-6 
12-7 
1 1-8 

13-n 

10-8 

13-2 

11-9 

1 1-4 

10-9 

1 1-8 

1 1-2 

1 1-6 

n-io 

13-6 

ii-n 

1 1-2 

12-2 

1 1-9 

11-9 

12-7 



i-5 
3-7 
2-6 
2-10 

1-7 
2-1 1 

i-7 

i-3 

3-6 

2-1 

4-6 

2-1 1 

2-8 

5-3 
2-8 

0-5 

i-ii 

1-10 

5-8 

0-4 

2-8 

i-9 

1-3 

1-2 

o-3 
0-6 

o-3 
i-5 
0-1 
1-0 
1-0 

0-1 
1-2 
8-0 
0-1 

1-9 
1-2 
1-2 



Fourth Grade 



1 
2 

5 
6 

9 
10 
n 

13 
14 
15 
17 
18 

19 



21 

23 
26 

25 
25 
22 
28 
29 

25 
21 

3i 

31 
32 



64 


5 


8 


9 


10 


50 


8 


7 


6 


8 


68 


8 


10 


8 


6 


70 


9 


10 


4 


13 


74 


8 


6 


10 


13 


72 


10 


9 


9 


10 


84 


9 


10 


9 


8 


89 


10 


10 


10 


13 


69 


8 


10 


9 


8 


67 


9 


9 


6 


12 


79 


7 


6 


9 


8 


85 


8 


10 


10 


13 


81 


6 


9 


8 


n 



32 
29 
32 
36 

37 
38 
36 
43 
35 
36 
30 
41 
34 



06 

79 
100 
106 
in 
no 
120 
132 
104 
103 
109 
126 
115 



108 

88 
126 


ii-3 
n-i 

1 1-3 


103 
126 


1 1-4 
10-8 


99 
88 


ii-n 
1 1-9 


141 
108 


12-0 
12-7 


102 

89 
148 
100 


ii-5 
n-o 

9-9 
10-7 



12-2 

9-9 

14-0 

1 1-8 

13-4 
1 1-9 
10-4 
16-10 
13-8 
1 1-7 
9-9 
14-4 
io-n 



MODERN METHODS OF MENTAL MEASUREMENT 



73 



Table IV, A (Continued 

















Fourth Grade (Continued) 












Group A 




Group B 




Case 12345 


Total 


1234 Total Total IQ CA MA 


20 


13 


8 


21 


15 


14 


7i 


8 


8 


5 


14 




35 ™6 


90 


12-10 


11-6 


21 


9 


8 


21 


9 


4 


5i 


8 


8 


3 


6 




25 76 


93 


11-7 


10-9 


22 


13 


5 


28 


10 


11 


67 


9 


7 


7 


10 




33 100 


79 


12-7 


1 0-0 


23 


15 


8 


25 


13 


13 


74 


7 


10 


8 


7 




32 106 


138 


11-0 


15-6 


25 


10 


7 


19 


4 


13 


53 


8 


7 





8 




23 76 


69 


12-11 


8-11 


27 


16 


4 


17 


12 


8 


57 


4 


5 


2 


5 




16 73 


70 


13-0 


9-3 


28 


11 


8 


25 


10 


7 


61 


8 


4 


1 


12 




25 86 


73 


12-3 


9-0 


29 


13 


5 


23 


12 


3 


56 


9 


4 


2 


10 




25 81 


73 


12-3 


9-0 


30 


14 


7 


30 


14 


17 


82 


9 


7 


8 


11 




35 117 


114 


ii-3 


12-9 


3i 


15 


7 


19 


15 


12 


68 


4 


7 


10 


9 




30 98 


92 


II-IO 


10-10 


32 


12 


6 


18 


12 


7 


55 


10 


10 


8 


12 




40 95 


9i 


11-7 


10-6 


33 


12 


9 


30 


17 


13 


81 


8 


6 


8 


8 




30 in 


121 


10-6 


12-8 


35 


13 


7 


25 


10 


12 


67 


8 


8 


8 


6 




30 97 


77 


13-5 


10-4 


38 


14 


8 


24 


17 


13 


76 


6 


8 


9 


8 




31 107 


112 


10-2 


ii-5 


40 


14 


7 


25 


18 


14 


78 


6 


9 


8 


12 




35 ii3 


119 


10-4 


12-4 


46 


10 


5 


18 





4 


37 


10 


6 


6 


6 




28 65 


116 


9-7 


ii-i 


47 


9 


9 


25 


12 


12 


67 


9 


9 


8 


7 




33 100 


112 


10- 1 


1 1-4 


48 


12 


2 


23 


7 





44 


6 


6 


2 


6 




20 64 


92 


ii-5 


10-6 


49 


14 


7 


24 


9 


12 


66 


9 


8 


4 


6 




27 93 


96 


1 1-2 


10-9 


51 


11 


7 


24 


9 


11 


62 


9 


7 


9 


13 




38 100 


112 


10-4 


1 1-7 


52 


11 


8 


27 


15 


11 


72 


8 


7 


7 


13 




35 107 


98 


ii-5 


11-3 


54 


12 


7 


26 


11 


13 


69 


8 


9 


7 


6 




30 99 


138 


9-11 


13-8 


5^ 


10 


7 


28 


12 


13 


70 


8 


7 


9 


10 




34 104 


107 


10-8 


ii-5 


57 


15 


7 


37 


13 


7 


74 


9 


9 


7 


7 




32 in 


116 


10-0 


1 1-6 


58 


12 


6 


19 


13 


13 


63 


6 


8 


7 


5 




26 89 


94 


10-9 


10- 1 


59 


15 


10 


21 


15 


11 


72 


10 


9 


8 


7 




34 106 


100 


11-0 


11-0 


60 


10 


7 


27 


9 


11 


64 


9 


8 


6 


4 




27 9i 


114 


9-7 


10- 1 1 


61 


11 


7 


28 


13 


11 


70 


9 


8 


5 


11 




33 103 


90 


10-5 


9-4 


62 


8 


6 


22 


8 


3 


47 


7 


4 


6 


3 




20 67 


82 


14-1 


11-6 


64 


11 


7 


21 


13 


14 


66 


9 


9 


8 


6 




32 98 


91 


1 1-9 


10-8 


65 


12 


9 


29 


14 


14 


78 


9 


9 


9 


13 




40 118 


82 


12- 1 


10-0 


66 


9 


7 


19 8 


12 


55 


8 





6 


7 




21 76 


103 


10-2 


10-5 






Table IV, B 




Raw I 


)ata for the Eleven Symbol Tests. 






Eighth Grade 




Group A 




Group B 




Case 123456 


Total 


12345 


Total Total IQ CA MA 


40 


8 


7 


23 


25 


9 


22 


94 


14 


31 


10 


10 


22 


87 181 


99 


15-2 


15-0 


5i 


7 


6 


33 


28 


10 


11 


95 


11 


32 


9 


17 


18 


87 182 


98 


17-0 


15-10 


54 


7 


7 


27 


28 


14 


21 


104 


14 


30 


9 


13 


21 


87 191 


102 


14-8 


14-10 


56 


7 


7 


16 


22 


10 


18 


80 


14 


16 


7 


11 


18 


66 146 


93 


15-6 


14-4 


59 


n 


8 


19 


3i 


13 


21 


103 


15 


32 


9 


15 


20 


91 194 


104 


14-2 


14-8 


60 


5 


7 


14 


25 


9 


14 


74 


10 


22 


9 


10 


15 


66 140 


97 


16-4 


15-10 


63 


6 


7 


14 


21 


9 


11 


68 


10 


27 


9 


7 


11 


64 132 


79 


17-0 


12-9 


65 


6 


9 


34 


35 


15 


22 


121 


10 


33 


9 


19 


21 


92 213 


106 


14-6 


15-4 


66 


5 


5 


16 


20 


9 


15 


70 


12 


22 


8 


10 


12 


64 134 


97 


13-" 


13-5 


7i 


8 


9 


19 


23 


9 


14 


82 


14 


32 


10 


13 


16 


85 167 


81 


15-2 


12-4 


72 


4 


8 


22 


26 


15 


17 


92 


12 


28 


8 


15 


23 


86 17 


8 


96 


15 


-10 


14-3 



74 



JAMES LEROY STOCKTON 



Table IV, B (Continued) 
Seventh Grade 



Group 
Case i 

2 
3 

4 
5 
6 

7 
ii 

12 

13 
14 
17 
18 

19 

21 
22 

23 

24 

25 
26 

27 
30 
31 
33 
35 
37 
38 
39 
40 
4i 
42 

43 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
5i 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
6o 
6i 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 

67 



5 6 Total 1 



Group B 
2 3 4 5 



Total Total 



9 


8 


20 


26 


13 


15 


10 


9 


33 


24 


16 


22 


6 


6 


21 


28 


8 


14 


13 


9 


30 


38 


13 


23 


10 


7 


24 


27 


10 


20 


9 


7 


19 


25 


10 


22 


5 


8 


14 


29 


8 


19 


10 


7 


25 


3i 


11 


20 


7 


7 


27 


38 


15 


22 


6 


8 


17 


24 


9 


18 


10 


8 


23 


35 


14 


23 


3 


5 


9 


10 


6 


9 


8 


8 


24 


30 


13 


19 


5 


7 


17 


13 


11 


15 


6 


7 


19 


26 


11 


23 


9 


8 


27 


26 


11 


20 


8 


8 


17 


27 


11 


14 


10 


6 


23 


30 


6 


19 


10 


9 


23 


21 


9 


21 


8 


9 


22 


28 


6 


19 


11 


9 


22 


3i 


14 


21 


2 


8 


24 


33 


11 


18 


7 


8 


19 


35 


9 


23 


5 


8 


12 


26 


5 


17 


5 


6 


15 


22 


8 


17 


7 


6 


25 


24 


9 


14 


8 


7 


21 


27 


9 


22 


6 


8 


18 


27 


10 


17 


6 


8 


24 


26 


10 


19 


7 


6 


29 


25 


13 


15 


6 


8 


21 


24 


9 


22 


8 


8 


24 


29 


11 


21 


8 


7 


15 


18 


10 


14 


6 


6 


14 


19 


9 


15 


10 


9 


32 


34 


15 


21 


5 


8 


21 


22 


10 


17 


9 


9 


28 


31 


13 


22 


5 


7 


21 


25 


9 


14 


10 


8 


22 


27 


11 


21 


7 


8 


15 


23 


7 


17 


3 


7 


11 


12 


6 


11 


7 


7 


23 


26 


13 


13 


6 


7 


17 


24 


10 


15 


7 


8 


17 


28 


12 


18 


8 


8 


26 


27 


12 


22 


8 


7 


25 


3i 


10 


20 


3 


8 


16 


24 


11 


17 


6 


7 


24 


27 


9 


15 


6 


7 


19 


25 


10 


17 


4 


8 


13 


16 


10 


16 


9 


6 


27 


38 


13 


21 


6 


8 


18 


25 


14 


19 


5 


8 


25 


26 


14 


21 



91 

114 

83 

126 

98 

92 

83 

104 

116 

82 

113 
42 

102 

68 
92 

101 
85 
94 
93 
92 

108 
96 

101 
73 
73 
85 
94 
86 

93 
95 
90 
101 
72 

69 
121 

83 

112 

81 

99 

77 

50 

89 

79 

00 

103 

101 

79 
88 

84 
67 
114 
90 
99 



14 
14 
10 

14 
13 
12 
10 
14 
15 
15 
12 
10 

13 
11 

14 
13 
10 

14 
11 
10 
16 
15 
15 
11 

13 

9 

11 

9 
11 

13 
11 

13 
11 

13 
16 

13 
14 
10 
12 
13 
7 
12 
12 
10 
11 
12 
11 
12 
12 

9 
12 

15 
9 



25 
30 
25 
36 
25 
24 
20 

36 

33 
29 

34 
17 
34 
25 
3i 
26 
28 
29 
18 
19 
32 
25 
33 
15 
21 

28 

21 

25 
19 
28 

27 
34 
12 

23 
39 
33 
36 
24 
22 

17 
21 

24 

20 

27 
32 
36 
30 
28 

25 
20 

34 
20 
29 



14 
10 
10 

14 
11 

9 
11 

13 
15 
13 
17 

8 

14 
13 
12 

9 
13 

8 

13 
10 

13 
12 

13 
6 

13 

13 

14 

9 

7 

13 

7 

10 
10 
11 
12 
11 

14 
12 
12 

9 
10 

13 
15 
17 

14 
8 

15 
6 

9 
12 
21 
13 
15 



18 
21 

17 
22 

15 
21 
18 
21 
23 
17 
16 

9 
18 

14 
18 

19 
18 
11 
19 
17 
20 

15 

18 

9 
18 
11 

18 

17 
20 
22 

19 
18 
21 

15 

22 
20 
22 
13 
15 
17 
15 
18 
16 

14 
22 
21 
16 

22 

14 
21 

14 
19 
20 



79 
85 
70 
96 
73 
75 
68 

94 
96 
83 
89 
49 
88 
72 
85 
77 
79 
7i 
68 
62 

89 
76 
89 
48 
74 
69 
72 
68 
65 
85 
7i 
84 
60 

7i 
99 
86 

96 
65 
7i 
64 
60 

76 
7i 

77 
88 

85 
82 

77 
68 

72 
9i 
76 
83 



170 
199 
153 
222 
171 
167 

151 
198 
212 

165 
202 

9i 
190 
140 
177 
178 
164 
165 
161 

154 
197 
172 
190 
121 
147 
154 
166 

154 
158 
180 
161 

185 
132 
140 
220 
169 
208 
146 
170 
141 
no 
165 
150 
167 
191 
186 
161 
165 
152 

139 
205 
166 
182 



IQ 
in 
121 

93 
116 

93 
no 
109 
121 
123 

93 
141 
62 
93 
89 
no 

99 
119 
118 
107 

92 

115 
100 
127 
106 



109 

95 
100 

117 

93 
130 

97 

80 

148 

9i 

114 

74 
114 

99 

83 

84 

122 

93 
113 
121 
112 

93 
88 

92 
128 
no 

122I 



CA 


MA 


[4-2 


15-8 


13-9 


16-7 


[5-11 


14-7 


[4-7 


16-10 


17-2 


14-10 


14-1 


15-5 


[4-11 


16-5 


14-0 


16-11 


13-3 


16-3 


[6-0 


15-0 


14-0 


19-9 


15-10 


9-10 


I5-I 


14-0 


15-4 


13-7 


13-n 


15-4 


14-5 


14-3 


14-3 


16-11 


12-11 


15-2 


15-3 


16-5 


14-0 


12-10 


14-0 


16-1 


13-n 


13-10 


14-0 


17-9 


14-1 


15-0 


15-8 


13-8 


14-9 


12-11 


14-5 


15-10 


13-3 


12-8 


15-9 


15-9 


14-5 


16-10 


14-5 


13-4 


13-3 


16-10 


14-2 


13-8 


14-5 


ii-5 


12-6 


18-5 


13-n 


12-8 


12-11 


14-9 


1 6-1 


12-1 


13-8 


15-7 


14-5 


14-3 


14-10 


12-4 


14-8 


12-4 


12-10 


15-7 


14-0 


13-0 


13-n 


15-8 


13-6 


16-3 


14-0 


15-10 


13-6 


12-6 


[4-10 


13-0 


14-2 


13-0 


13-4 


17-2 


13-8 


i5-i 


[i-ii 


14-5 



MODERN METHODS OF MENTAL MEASUREMENT 



75 



Table IV, B (Continued) 
Sixth Grade 



Group 


A 














Group B 


Case 


12 3 4 5 6 


Total 


12 3 4 5 


i 


6 


7 


17 


20 


7 


17 


74 


9I27 


7 


9 


16 


2 


3 


7 


15 


22 


8 


13 


68 


8 


23 


6 


9 


19 


3 


8 


4 


22 


25 


11 


15 


85 


12 


27 


9 


8 


19 


6 


8 


8 


16 


32 


11 


20 


95 


13 


34 


10 


10 


19 


7 


4 


3 


7 


18 


5 


12 


49 


9 


19 


8 


7 


12 


8 


5 


7 


17 


21 


11 


19 


80 


12 


21 


9 


5 


12 


9 


6 


8 


15 


16 


8 


16 


69 


10 


25 


5 


6 


18 


10 


9 


8 


25 


34 


14 


12 


102 


11 


34 


10 


14 


20 


12 


1 


6 


17 


22 


10 


17 


73 


11 


16 


7 


7 


15 


13 


3 


7 


18 


15 


10 


21 


74 


13 


19 


9 


11 


18 


14 


6 


9 


15 


15 


11 


12 


68 


12 


19 


9 


12 


15 


15 


4 


7 


20 


24 


9 


11 


75 


12 


3i 


9 


13 


19 


16 


7 


9 


26 


38 


13 


18 


in 


II 


3i 


7 


8 


19 


17 


5 


7 


22 


21 


11 


18 


84 


12 


19 


10 


13 


19 


18 


4 


8 


16 


24 


12 


13 


77 


14 


27 


6 


14 


18 


21 


6 


6 


12 


27 


10 


16 


77 


10 


18 


9 


9 


16 


22 


8 


9 


22 


32 


14 


18 


103 


11 


28 


10 


10 


16 


23 


7 


6 


12 


22 


10 


15 


72 


10 


23 


8 


8 


16 


24 


8 


9 


24 


30 


13 


21 


105 


11 


36 


10 


13 


22 


25 


9 


8 


14 


27 


11 


18 


87 


14 


28 


10 


11 


17 


26 


8 


6 


9 


14 


8 


14 


59 


12 


23 


6 


9 


11 


27 


3 


7 


16 


19 


8 


13 


66 


12 


20 


8 


10 


17 


30 


5 


9 


24 


25 


10 


9 


&2 


10 


33 


7 


15 


19 


32 


5 


7 


14 


23 


10 


12 


7i 


11 


28 


7 


10 


19 


35 


10 


9 


20 


27 


9 


20 


95 


11 


26 


10 


10 


18 


36 


8 


7 


28 


22 


14 


19 


98 


10 


34 


9 


15 


22 


38 


8 


8 


23 


24 


7 


19 


89 


11 


26 


10 


14 


18 


39 


4 


8 


26 


25 


12 


15 


90 


10 


26 


9 


13 


21 


4i 


5 


8 


24 


38 


13 


17 


105 


14 


30 


9 


18 


22 


42 


6 


7 


20 


20 


13 


18 


84 


10 


29 


8 


13 


20 


43 


7 


7 


15 


21 


10 


16 


76 


10 


26 


10 


10 


17 


44 


8 


5 


10 


28 


8 


16 


75 


11 


23 


5 


9 


16 


45 


9 


7 


18 


28 


9 


17 


88 


12 


27 


9 


14 


22 


46 


8 


8 


16 


28 


10 


12 


82 


13 


28 


8 


11 


15 


47 


4 


7 


11 


21 


8 


15 


66 


9 


20 


9 


7 


12 


49 


8 


7 


15 


26 


10 


17 


83 


12 


24 


7 


12 


15 


50 


5 


7 


19 


17 


10 


15 


73 


12 


30 


9 


10 


15 


5i 


9 


8 


19 


30 


10 


22 


98 


11 


34 


10 


5 


18 


52 


5 


7 


10 


21 


5 


10 


' 58 


11 


20 


9 


8 


12 


54 


7 


7 


21 


27 


11 


22 


95 


10 


35 


9 


9 


16 


55 


6 


6 


9 


18 


9 


13 


61 


10 


19 


8 


10 


15 


56 


5 


7 


17 


22 


8 


8 


67 


11 


22 


6 


11 


17 


57 


9 


8 


18 


31 


12 


21 


99 


11 


23 


10 


13 


23 


58 


9 


5 


25 


23 


10 


17 


89 


11 


30 


7 


10 


11 


59 


6 


5 


8 


18 


4 


14 


55 


10 


17 


7 


9 


12 


6i 


6 


6 


12 


25 


10 


17 


76 


8 


20 


10 


12 


16 


66 


4 


6 


13 


24 


11 


22 


80 


10 


23 


6 


13 


17 


67 


5 


5 


8 


19 


7 


11 


55 


8 


17 


6 


7 


8 


70 


4 


7 


10 





11 


10 


42 


11 


20 


5 


9 


13 


7i 


6 


9 


17 


18 


11 


21 


82 


11 


22 


9 


9 


21 


72 


4 


6 


14 


12 


9 


17 


62 


10 


22 


7 


6 


17 


73 


2 


5 


13 


19 


8 


11 


58 


11 1 


26 


6 


11 


12 



Total Total IQ CA MA 

68 142 98 13-4 13- 1 
65 133 81 15-5 12-6 

75 160 99 15-7 15-4 
86 181 102 13-5 13-8 

55 104 85 15-4 13-0 

59 139 86 14-10 12-8 

64 133 94 13-10 13-1 

89 191 140 12-4 17-3 

56 129 74 17-0 12-0 
70 144 101 13-3 13-5 
67 135 94 13-n 13-2 
84 159 88 13-10 12-3 

76 187 107 13-8 14-7 
73 J 57 98 13-n 13-9 
79 156 91 12-10 11-8 
62 139 102 12-0 12-3 
75 178 120 13-10 16-6 

65 137 107 13-3 14-2 

92 197 143 1 1-8 16-8 

78 165 135 12-8 17-0 

61 120 79 15-0 ii-io 
67 133 72 14-3 10-4 
84 166 105 12-10 13-5 
75 146 98 13-9 13-4 
75 170 123 12-11 15-10 

90 188 134 12-3 16-4 

79 168 108 13-7 14-9 

79 169 91 13-3 12-1 

93 198 no 14-3 15-8 

80 164 122 13-9 16-8 
73 149 104 12-10 13-4 
64 139 88 14-11 13-2 
84 172 119 13-9 16-4 

75 157 in 12-11 14-5 

57 123 93 13-5 12-7 
70 153 89 13-3 11-10 

76 149 87 14-5 12-6 

78 176 121 12-7 15-2 

60 118 105 13-1 13-8 

79 174 119 13-7 16-2 

62 123 117 12-7 14-7 
67 134 97 1 1-9 10-8 

80 179 126 13-n 17-6 

69 158 119 12-3 14-6 
55 no 96 12-11 12-5 

66 142 91 13-2 ii-ii 
69 149 100 12-1 12-1 
46 101 92 13-1 12-0 

58 100 82 14-10 12-5 
72 154 109 14- 1 15-4 
62 124 102 12-9 13-1 
66 124 74 15-2 1 1-3 



76 



JAMES LEROY STOCKTON 

















Table IV 


, B 


(Continued) 
















Fifth Grade 








Group A 




Group B 








Case 


123456 


Total 12345 


Total 


Total 


IQ CA MA 


i 


6 


8 


13 


20 


1 8 


I16 


7i 


11 


I22 


7 


12 


3 


55 


126 


105 


II-IO 


12-5 


2 


7 


6 


14 


22 


9 


1 10 


68 


11 


27 


6 


8 


15 


67 


135 


97 13-3 


12-10 


3 


3 


3 


11 


20 


1 5 


1 8 


50 


5 


19 


5 


8 


12 


49 


99 


84 


13-5 


1 1-4 


5 


6 


6 


14 


20 


8 


10 


64 


9 


21 


6 


9 


10 


55 


119 


80 


13-4 


10-7 


6 


7 


8 


13 


20 


7 


15 


70 


10 


19 


9 


10 


12 


60 


130 


94 


13-2 


12-4 


7 


11 


7 


20 


28 


14 


22 


102 


10 


3i 


10 


9 


12 


72 


174 


152 


1 1-3 


17-4 


8 


7 


7 


18 


22 


10 


17 


81 


10 


18 


7 


9 


18 


62 


143 


105 


11-7 


12-1 


9 


7 


7 


20 


3i 


12 


14 


9i 


6 


26 


8 


16 


19 


75 


166 


127 


13-1 


16-6 


10 


7 


9 


25 


3i 


13 


21 


106 


10 


39 


8 


11 


22 


90 


196 


117 


13-7 


15-n 


n 


4 


4 


6 


16 


7 


11 


48 


9 


18 


7 


9 


12 


55 


103 


93 


13-10 


12-10 


15 


8 


5 


12 


14 


9 


5 


53 


9 


16 


3 


7 


12 


47 


100 


80 


I5-I 


12-1 


16 


5 


6 


12 


22 


8 


15 


68 


12 


21 


8 


11 


13 


65 


133 


98 


11-10 


11-8 


17 


5 


6 


13 


17 


9 


12 


62 


8 


23 


7 


13 


17 


68 


130 


84 


13-3 


1 1-2 


18 


3 


7 


16 


23 


8 


12 


69 


12 


25 


7 


11 


19 


74 


143 


118 


12-1 


14-3 


19 


12 


8 


21 


28 


11 


21 


101 


12 


32 


10 


15 


21 


90 


191 


116 


12-7 


14-6 


20 


8 


7 


18 


27 


11 


22 


93 


9 


33 


9 


15 


20 


86 


179 


no 


12-6 


13-9 


21 


4 


8 


16 


22 


10 


11 


71 


8 


26 


9 


10 


16 


69 


140 


86 


15-3 


13-3 


22 


7 


7 


24 


38 


10 


19 


105 


12 


34 


10 


16 


17 


89 


194 


151 


10-9 


16-3 


23 


4 


8 


16 


17 


10 


15 


70 


10 


22 


8 


9 


15 


64 


134 


98 


12-9 


12-5 


24 


7 


7 


14 


25 


11 


14 


78 


11 


23 


9 


10 


15 


68 


146 


103 


11-9 


12-1 


25 


8 


8 


15 


24 


9 


20 


84 


9 


27 


9 


9 


14 


68 


152 


95 


12-2 


1 1-8 


26 


4 


7 


9 


14 


9 


9 


52 


10 


18 


5 


9 


13 


55 


107 


97 


12-6 


12-2 


27 


3 


7 


13 


21 


10 


15 


69 


9 


18 


5 


9 


11 


52 


121 


85 


14-2 


12-0 


29 


5 


7 


18 


15 


7 


12 


64 


9 


16 


8 


6 


9 


48 


112 


94 


12- 1 


ii-5 


30 


7 


8 


24 


30 


10 


20 


99 


11 


28 


9 


13 


12 


73 


172 


113 


12-1 


13-7 


3i 


6 


2 


15 


6 


5 


14 


48 


10 


17 


5 


8 


8 


48 


96 


88 


14-3 


12-6 


32 


7 


7 


25 


27 


12 


18 


96 


12 


25 


10 


8 


18 


73 


169 


113 


1 1-4 


12-10 


33 


4 


7 


9 


19 


8 


12 


59 


10 


17 


9 


7 


12 


55 


114 


100 


11-6 


1 1-7 


35 


5 


6 


18 


26 


11 


18 


86 


12 


24 


7 


11 


16 


70 


156 


104 


12-5 


12-11 


36 


3 


6 


14 


25 


9 


12 


69 


9 


25 


7 


13 


15 


69 


138 


90 


12-10 


1 1-7 


38 


7 


7 


12 


14 


9 


10 


59 


11 


23 


6 


9 


11 


60 


119 


9i 


12-4 


1 1-3 


39 


5 


4 


11 


16 


8 


12 


56 


8 


27 


7 


9 


16 


67 


123 


108 


12-6 


13-6 


40 


7 


7 


13 


21 


8 


17 


73 


10 


25 


8 


12 


15 


7o 


143 


106 


ii-5 


12-1 


41 


8 


6 


12 


25 


10 


21 


82 


7 


29 


9 


8 


15 


68 


150 


126 


11-7 


14-6 


44 


4 


7 


10 


17 


8 


17 


63 


7 


18 


7 


10 


16 


58 


121 


116 


1 1-2 


12- 1 1 


45 


4 


7 


13 


24 


7 


18 


73 


8 


23 


8 


11 


17 


67 


140 


105 


12-2 


12-8 


46 


6 


8 


14 


23 


12 


18 


81 


12 


26 


8 


13 


16 


75 


156 


143 


10-8 


15-3 


47 


4 


7 


18 


27 


9 


15 


80 


9 


22 


10 


8 


14 


63 


143 


in 


ii-5 


12-8 


5i 


7 


6 


10 


18 


3 


6 


50 


8 


14 


3 


9 


12 


46 


96 


76 


13-8 


10-5 


52 


5 


5 


17 


20 


9 


2 


58 


9 


19 


6 


6 


12 


52 


no 


89 


13-5 


ii-ii 


53 


8 


3 


4 


15 


9 


13 


52 


8 


19 


4 


8 


9 


48 


100 


93 


12-9 


II-IO 


54 


9 


6 


20 


23 


11 


19 


88 


11 


24 


9 


11 


19 


74 


162 


136 


1 1-6 


15-8 


55 


4 


6 


14 


14 


8 


6 


52 


7 


17 


5 


11 


18 


58 


no 


82 


12-7 


10-4 


56 


8 


5 


21 


14 


7 


13 


68 


12 


25 


5 


7 


18 


67 


135 


109 


1 1-8 


12-8 


57 


6 


5 


3 


11 


5 


8 


38 


6 


18 


4 


8 


11 


47 


85 


85 


13-11 


1 1-9 


58 


6 


6 


15 


26 


9 


15 


77 


11 


27 


8 


8 


16 


70 


147 


106 


10-8 


1 1-3 


59 


3 


4 


5 


7 


4 


5 


28 


8 


14 


3 


3 


9 


37 


65 


84 


13-2 


1 1-2 


61 


4 


5 


11 


13 


6 


13 


52 


9 


16 


5 


7 


12 


49 


101 


88 


11-9 


10-4 


62 


3 


5 


10 


13 


6 


10 


47 


1 


13 


3 


8 


13 


38 


85 


93 


11-4 


10-6 


63 


4 


6 


15 


11 


8 


14 


58 


8 


18 


1 


11 


13 


51 


109 


95 


10-9 


10-3 


64 


6 


4 


14 


21 


9 


17 


7i 


6 


19 


6 


11 


18 


60 


131 


98 


1 1-8 


ii-5 


65 


3 


4 


5 


13 


5 


4 


35 


4 


14 


5 


8 


9 


40 


74 


9i 


1 1-2 


IO-I 


67 


4 


6 


15 





6 


14 


45 


10 


11 


4 





17 


42 


87 


95 


11-6 


11-0 


68 


5 


7 


10 


14 


7 


1 


44 


10 


10 


6 


11 


15 


52 


96 


931 


II-IO 


II-O 


69 


5 


5 


12 


10 


8 


13 


53 


6 


17 


6 


10 


13 


52 


105 


751 


13-6 


IO-I 



MODERN METHODS OF MENTAL MEASUREMENT 



77 



Table IV, B (Continued) 
Fifth Grade (Continued) 



Group 


A 














Group B 












Case 


123456 


Total 


12 3 4 5 


Total 


Total 


IQ 


70 


5 


5 


10 


5 


6 


9 


40 


8 


14 


5 


8 


12 


47 


87 


94 


n-ii 


1 1-2 


71 


6 


6 


26 


29 


9 


20 


96 


9 


29 


9 


10 


14 


7i 


167 


162 


11-2 


18-0 


74 


6 


3 


8 


9 


5 


13 


44 


9 


17 


5 


8 


12 


5i 


95 


83 


12-2 


10- 1 


75 


4 


5 


10 


16 


5 


13 


53 


11 


13 


4 


6 


9 


43 


96 


100 


1 1-9 


1 1-9 


78 


3 


3 


5 


4 


3 


5 


23 


8 


14 


2 


4 


11 


39 


62 


95 


1 1-9 


1 1-2 


79 


2 


4 


3 


17 


11 


16 


53 


9 


14 


5 


6 


17 


5i 


104 


89 


12-7 


11-2 








Fourth Grade 








1 


5 


4 


2 


14 


4 


8 


37 


10 


18 


4 


6 


9 


47 


84 


108 


ii-3 


12-1 


2 


6 


5 


9 


18 


6 


5 


49 


5 


20 


4 


8 


11 


48 


97 


88 


n-i 


9-10 


5 


5 


8 


10 


18 


6 


8 


55 


9 


30 


10 


10 


15 


74 


129 


126 


1 1-3 


13-n 


6 


4 


4 


10 


20 


5 


13 


56 


8 


18 


4 


6 


11 


47 


103 


103 


1 1-4 


1 1-8 


9 


4 


7 


15 


1.9 


8 


15 


68 


8 


19 


7 


10 


16 


60 


128 


126 


10-8 


13-3 


10 


4 


5 


11 


14 


8 


11 


53 


7 


20 


5 


12 


17 


61 


114 


99 


n-ii 


11-9 


11 


2 


4 


9 


10 


2 


14 


4i 


5 


15 


4 


8 


14 


46 


87 


88 


1 1-9 


io-s 


13 


8 


8 


21 


29 


9 


19 


94 


8 


24 


7 


15 


22 


76 


170 


141 


12-0 


16-8 


14 


4 


5 


10 


27 


9 


12 


67 


9 


18 


8 


10 


14 


59 


126 


108 


12-7 


13-7 


15 


5 


5 


10 


17 


7 


14 


58 


6 


20 


6 


8 


17 


57 


115 


102 


ii-5 


11-7 


17 


6 


6 


8 


19 


7 


15 


61 


9 


21 


9 


8 


15 


62 


123 


89 


n-o 


9-10 


18 


7 


8 


25 


30 


13 


21 


104 


10 


28 


10 


7 


19 


74 


178 


148 


9-9 


14-1 


19 


6 


7 


16 


18 


9 


13 


69 


9 


21 


10 


11 


18 


69 


138 


100 


10-7 


10-7 


20 


6 


4 


9 


19 


6 


14 


58 


9 


13 


4 


8 


14 


48 


106 


90 


12-10 


11-7 


21 


6 


4 


4 


19 


4 


13 


50 


8 


17 


6 


9 


10 


50 


100 


93 


11-7 


10-10 


22 


4 


6 


9 


4 


6 


4 


33 


7 


16 


3 


9 


18 


53 


86 


79 


12-7 


10- 1 


23 


5 


6 


17 


22 


7 


16 


73 


8 


30 


9 


10 


16 


73 


146 


138 


n-o 


15-4 


25 


4 


3 


10 


19 


4 


1 


4i 


5 


6 


3 


11 


13 


38 


79 


69 


12-11 


9-i 


27 


3 


6 


8 


17 


8 


9 


5i 


5 


16 


5 


8 


10 


44 


95 


70 


13-0 


9-5 


28 





2 


12 


10 


7 


6 


37 


7 


16 


4 


7 


9 


43 


80 


73 


12-3 


9-2 


29 





2 


3 





2 


5 


12 


7 


13 


2 


2 


4 


28 


40 


73 


12-3 


9-2 


30 


5 


5 


8 


13 


5 


10 


46 


8 


16 


4 


7 


12 


47 


93 


114 


1 1-3 


12-8 


31 


4 


6 


11 


13 


7 


14 


55 


8 


16 


3 


8 


9 


44 


99 


92 


II-IO 


IO-II 


32 


4 


5 


9 


13 


6 


14 


5i 


8 


20 


5 


5 


10 


48 


99 


9i 


11-7 


10-7 


33 


6 


5 


11 


17 


6 


13 


58 


9 


14 


5 


10 


14 


52 


no 


121 


10-6 


12-7 


35 


3 


6 


6 


17 


6 


15 


53 


8 


16 


7 


6 


12 


49 


102 


77 


13-5 


10-6 


38 


2 


8 


15 


18 


9 


11 


63 


8 


23 


7 


14 


20 


72 


135 


112 


10-2 


1 1-4 


40 


7 


7 


17 


15 


11 


12 


69 


9 


18 


8 


15 


13 


63 


132 


119 


10-4 


12-2 


46 


6 


3 


7 


14 


6 


5 


4i 


8 


18 


4 


5 


10 


45 


86 


116 


9-7 


n-o 


47 


4 


7 


8 


21 


8 


10 


58 


8 


22 


7 


8 


16 


61 


119 


112 


IO-I 


ii-3 


48 


3 


5 


13 


11 


7 


8 


47 


6 


15 


5 


7 


12 


45 


92 


92 


ii-5 


10-7 


49 


4 


5 


13 


16 


6 


11 


55 


8 


19 


5 


8 


14 


54 


109 


96 


11-2 


10-9 


5i 


2 


5 


5 


12 


3 


8 


35 


8 


19 


1 


1 


9 


38 


73 


112 


10-4 


1 1-6 


52 


6 


5 


12 


14 


8 


4 


49 





16 


7 


11 


15 


49 


98 


98 


1 1-5 


ii-3 


54 


1 


7 


18 


25 


12 


19 


82 


9 


24 


9 


11 


18 


71 


153 


139 


9-1 1 


13-6 


55 


4 


3 


6 


14 


4 


9 


40 


7 


19 


3 


5 


10 


44 


84 


107 


10-8 


1 1-4 


57 


6 


8 


16 


29 


9 


16 


84 


11 


24 


8 


8 


12 


63 


147 


116 


10-0 


ii-5 


58 


3 


4 


8 


12 


6 


13 


46 


6 


18 


3 


6 


11 


44 


90 


94 


10-9 


10-2 


59 


4 


5 


10 


17 


6 


16 


58 


9 


19 


6 


10 


13 


57 


115 


100 


n-o 


11-0 


60 


3 


6 


12 


23 


6 


11 


61 


7 


22 


7 


7 


16 


59 


120 


114 


9-7 


10-10 


61 


4 


4 


10 


8 


3 


8 


37 


7 


17 


2 


8 


5 


39 


76 


90 


10-5 


9-5 


62 


2 


4 


4 


11 


5 


10 


36 


8 


14 


5 


3 


8 


38 


74 


82 


14-1 


1 1-8 


64 


2 


4 


6 


1 


5 


11 


29 


9 


17 


2 


8 


9 


45 


74 


9i 


1 1-9 


10-9 


65 


4 


5 


3 


19 


10 


10 


5i 


7 


17 


5 


7 


12 


48 


99 


82 


12-1 


10-2 


66 


1 1 


3 


7 


16 


1 5 


10 


42 


8 


16 


5 


1 6 


9 


44 


86 


103 


10-2 


10-5 



78 



JAMES LEROY STOCKTON 



The first evidence drawn from these data in favor of the theory 
of levels in intentionally controlled intelligence was found in cer- 
tain correlations made between the results of the individual and 
the combined group tests with Binet mental age. A table of 
these correlations is given below. 

Table V 
Correlation Coefficients of the Individual and Combined Group Tests with 

Binet Mental Age. 



I. Perceptual Tests. 

I. Picture Completion 42 

II. Series Completion 46 

III. Comparison 40 

IV. Symbol Digit . ; 45 

V. Form Combination 34 

VI. Copying Designs 30 

VII. Pictorial Sequence 43 

VIII. Pictorial Identities 46 

IX. Recognitive Memory 29 



Total Perceptual 60 



II. Symbol Tests. 

I. Arithmetical Reasoning.. .63 

II. Written Directions 58 

III. Information 68 

IV. Synonym-Antonym 65 

V. Practical Judgment 65 

VI. Analogies 68 

VII. Arithmetical Fundamen- 
tals 59 

VIII. Vocabulary 75 

IX. Sentence Completion 68 

X. Mixed up Sentences 53 

XI. Logical Selection 60 

Total Symbol 80 



The tests featured in the foregoing table are those used by the 
National Research Council in their preliminary trials for the 
standardization of an elementary school group test. The writer 
is fully aware that it is psychologically impossible to make an 
absolute classification of tests as "perceptual" tests and "symbol" 
tests. Each test is of both types to a certain degree. But it is 
possible to classify the tests as predominantly of one type or the 
other, which is all that is necessary to bring out the point in 
question. Assuming that this is so, the results given in the table 
show a decided tendency in favor of the theory being tested. 
The tests in which perceptual elements predominate do not cor- 
relate as highly in any case with Binet mental age as do the tests 
in which symbol elements predominate. The perceptual tests as 
a battery correlate only .60, while the symbol tests as a battery 
correlate .80. 

The majority of the individual symbol tests taken singly 
correlate higher with Binet mental age than does the whole bat- 
tery of perceptual tests. The vocabulary test alone, perhaps the 
most abstract of all, shows a coefficient which is 15 points above 



MODERN METHODS OF MENTAL MEASUREMENT 79 

the whole perceptual battery. These differences cannot reason- 
ably be ascribed to mere differences in the amount of standardi- 
zation which the given tests have had. They have had at least 
approximately equal standardization. Nor can the differences 
reasonably be ascribed to differences in reliability of the individ- 
ual tests, although if time and other conditions had permitted the 
computation of reliability coefficients would have been a valuable 
addition to the evidence. The differences shown in the table are, 
however, so large that it seems a reasonable assumption that they 
are due, at least in part, to the fact that the two types of tests tap 
different levels of intelligence, and that on one of these levels, 
the perceptual, high and low intelligence are closer together in 
achievement than on the other, and therefore are not so well dif- 
ferentiated by tests which tap only that level. 

The next step was that of making a more definite contrast be- 
tween the achievement of high and low intelligence in the per- 
ceptual tests and in the symbol tests. The cases were first dis- 
tributed as to chronological age and I. Q. as shown in Table VI. 

After the cases had been distributed as to chronological age 
and I. Q., as shown in Table VI, a contrast was made as shown 
in Table VII. Middle I. Q.'s — those between 92 and 107 inclu- 
sive — were dropped; and the achievement of I. Q. below 92 was 
contrasted with the achievement of I. Q. above 107. The limits 
of the central group (a span of 15 points from 92 to 107) were 
chosen rather arbitrarily (1) because seven groups arranged in 
intervals of 15 points of I. Q. fit very well with the seven point 
scale upon which teachers' judgments of intelligence were 
made, and (2) because by actual attempts at distribution, 
groups based upon intervals of 20 points proved to be too wide, 
while those based upon intervals of 10 points were too narrow. 
The contrast was made separately for the perceptual tests as a 
group, and for the symbol tests as another group. That is, the 
total scores of the low I. Q.'s in the perceptual tests were ranked 
and the median score found. The same was done for the scores 
of the high I. Q.'s in the same tests. Then the median score for 
low I. Q. was divided by the median score for high I. Q. Thus 
there was developed a ratio (or index) of the relative success of 



8o 



JAMES LEROY STOCKTON 



Table VI 
Chronological Age and Binet I. Q. 



10 


j 




n 




12 






13 




14 


No. Yrs. 


I.Q. 1 


No. Yrs. 


I.Q. 


No. Yrs. 


r.Q. 


No. 


Yrs. 


I.Q. 


No. Yrs. I.Q. 


Fourth Grade 


Fourth Grade 


Fourth Grade 


Fourth Grade 


Fourth Grade 


9 10-8 


126 


1 


1 1-3 


108 


13 12-0 


141 


27 


13-0 


70 


62 14- 1 82 


19 10-7 


100 


2 


n-i 


88 


14 12-7 


108 


35 


13-5 


77 




33 10-6 


121 


5 


1 1-3 


126 


20 12-10 


90 








Fifth Grade 


38 10-2 


112 


6 


1 1-4 


103 


22 12-7 


79 


Fifth Grade 


27 14-2 85 


40 10-4 


119 


10 


ii-n 


99 


25 12-n 


69 


2 


13-3 


97 


31 14-3 88 


47 10-1 


112 


n 


11-9 


88 


28 12-3 


73 


3 


13-5 


84 


Sixth Grade 
8 14-10 86 
27 14-3 72 

A T T A -"V T T *~i 


51 10-4 


112 


15 


1 1-5 


102 


29 12-3 


73 


5 


13-4 


80 


55 10-8 
57 10-0 


107 
116 


17 
21 


n-o 

11-7 


89 
93 


65 1 2- 1 


82 


6 
9 


13-2 
I3-I 


94 
127 


58 10-9 
61 10-5 
66 10-2 


94 
90 

103 


23 
30 
31 


II-O 

1 1-3 

II-IO 


138 

114 

92 


Fifth Grade 

18 12-1 118 

19 12-7 116 


10 

11 
17 


13-7 
13-10 

13-3 


117 
93 
84 


41 14-3 no 
44 14-n 88 
50 14-5 87 

70 14-10 82 

71 14-1 109 






32 


11-7 


9i 


20 12-6 


no 


51 


13-8 


76 


Fifth Grade 


48 


1 1-5 


92 


23 12-9 


98 


52 


13-5 


89 


22 10-9 


151 


49 


1 1-2 


96 


25 12-2 


95 


57 


13-n 


85 


Seventh Grade 


46 10-8 


143 


52 


ii-5 


98 


26 12-6 


97 


59 


13-2 


84 


2 14-2 in 


63 10-9 


95 


59 


II-O 


100 


29 12-1 


94 


69 


13-6" 


75 


5 14-7 116 






64 


1 1-9 


9i 


30 12-1 


113 








7 14-1 no 












35 12-5 


104 


Sixth Grade 


11 14-11 109 

12 14-0 112 






Fifth Grade 


36 12-10 


GO 


1 


13-4 


98 






1 


II-IO 


105 


38 12-4 


91 


6 


13-5 


102 


17 14-0 141 






7 


ii-3 


152 


39 12-6 


108 


9 


13-10 


94 


23 14-5 99 






8 


1 1-7 


105 


45 12-2 


105 


13 


13-3 


101 


24 14-3 119 






16 


II-IO 


98 


53 12-9 


93 


14 


13-n 


94 


27 14-0 92 






24 


1 1-9 


103 


55 12-7 


82 


15 


13-10 


88 


30 14-0 115 






32 


1 1-4 


113 


74 12-2 


83 


16 


13-8 


107 


33 14-0 127 






33 


11-6 


100 


79 *2-7 


89 


17 


13-n 


98 


35 14- 1 106 






40 


ii-5 


106 






22 


13-10 


120 


38 14-9 88 






4i 


1 1-7 


126 


Sixth Grade 


23 


13-3 


107 


39 14-5 109 






44 


1 1-2 


116 


10 12-4 


140 


32 


13-9 


08 


42 14-5 117 






47 


ii-5 


in 


18 12-10 


9i 


38 


13-7 


108 


43 14-5 93 






54 


11-6 


136 


21 12-0 


102 


39 


13-3 


91 


46 14-2 97 






56 


11-8 


109 


25 12-8 


135 


42 


13-9 


122 


47 14-5 80 






61 


1 1-9 


88 


30 12-10 


105 


45 


13-9 


119 


53 14-5 99 






62 


1 1-4 


93 


35 12-11 


123 


47 


13-5 


93 


54 14-10 83 






64 


1 1-8 


98 


36 12-3 


134 


49 


13-3 


89 


55 14-8 84 






65 


1 1-2 


91 


43 12-10 


104 


52 


I3-I 


105 


57 14-0 93 






67 


1 1-6 


95 


46 12-n 


in 


54 


13-7 


119 


61 14-0 112 






68 


II-IO 


93 


51 12-7 


121 


57 


13-n 


126 


63 14-10 88 






70 


ii-n 


94 


55 12-7 


117 


61 


13-2 


91 


64 14-2 92 






7i 


1 1-2 


162 


58 12-3 


119 


67 


13-1 


92 








75 


1 1-9 


100 


59 12-n 


96 








Eighth Grade 






78 


1 1-9 


95 


66 12-1 


100 


Seventh Grade 


54 14-8 102 












72 12-9 


102 


3 


13-9 


121 


59 14-2 104 






Sixth Grade 






13 


13-3 


123 


65 14-6 106 






24 1 1-8 143 
56 1 1 -9 97 

Seventh Grade 


Seventh Grade 
25 12-n 118 
48 12-6 148 
50 12-11 114 


22 

31 

40 

45 


13-11 

13-n 

13-3 

13-3 


no 
100 

95 

130 






13 yrs. (contd.) 




62 13-6 93 






67 


ii-n 


122 


56 12-10 


122 


49 

52 
58 
60 


13-n 

13-8 

13-11 

13-6 


9i 
114 
113 
121 


65 13-4 128 

66 13-8 no 

Eighth Grade 
66 13-11 97 



MODERN METHODS OF MENTAL MEASUREMENT Si 

the two groups of pupils in the perceptual tests. The same pro- 
cess carried through for the symbol tests provided an index of the 
relative success of low and high I. Q. in those tests. Then the 
two indices were compared. Theoretically, if the achievement of 
low and high I. Q. is nearer together in the perceptual tests than 
in the symbol tests (as would naturally be the case if the theory 
of the levels is true), then the index as obtained above for the 
perceptual tests would be expected to be smaller than that ob- 
tained for the symbol tests. A sample of how such an index is 
obtained is given in Table VII, and a combined table of a num- 
ber of such indices is shown in Table VIII. 

Table VII 

Contrast of Achievement of Low and High I. Q. in Perceptual 

and Symbol Tests. 

Chronological Ages 10 and n 
Perceptual Tests Symbol Tests 

Low I. Q. 

Scores Me- 
Case I.Q. Score Ranked dian Index Score Ranked dian Index 



100.5 92 



4-2 


88 


79 


79 


4-1 1 


88 


120 


85 


4-17 


89 


109 


95 


4-32 


91 


95 


98 


4-61 


90 


103 


103 


4-64 


9i 


98 


109 


5-6i 


88 


112 


112 


5-65 


9i 


85 


120 




High I. Q. 




4-1 


108 


96 


95 


4-5 


126 


100 


96 


4-9 


126 


in 


100 


4-23 


138 


106 


100 


4-30 


114 


117 


100 


4-33 


121 


in 


100 


4-38 


112 


107 


IOI 


4-40 


119 


113 


104 


4-47 


112 


100 


106 


4-5i 


112 


100 


106 


4-57 


116 


in 


107 


5-7 


152 


in 


109 


5-22 


151 


119 


in 


5-32 


113 


IOI 


in 


5-41 


126 


106 


in 


5-44 


116 


104 


in 


5-46 


143 


114 


113 


5-47 


in 


109 


114 


5-54 


136 


95 


117 


5-71 


162 


100 


119 


6-24 


143 


141 


138 


7-67 


122 


138 


141 



.930 .636 





Low I. Q. 




Scores 


Scon 


1 Ranked 


97 


74 


87 


74 


123 


76 


99 


87 


76 


97 


74 


99 


IOI 


IOI 


74 


123 




High I. Q. 


84 


73 


129 


84 


128 


93 


146 


no 


93 


119 


no 


121 


135 


128 


132 


129 


119 


132 


73 


135 


147 


143 


174 


146 


194 


147 


169 


150 


150 


156 


121 


162 


156 


167 


143 


169 


162 


174 


167 


182 


197 


194 


182 


197 



108 144.5 



82 JAMES LEROY STOCKTON 

Table VIII 

Contrast of Achievement of Low and High I. Q. in Perceptual 

and Smybol Tests 
Perceptual Tests Symbol Tests 

Median Index Median Index 

Chronological Ages 10 and n 
Low I. Q. 100.5 92.0 

•930 .636 

High I. Q. 108.0 144.5 

Chronological Ages 11 and 12 
Low I. Q. 98.0 99.0 

.875 .60 

High I. Q. 1 12.0 165.0 

Chronological Ages 12 and 13 
Low I. Q. 103.5 104.5 

.821 .60 

High I. Q. 126.0 174.0 

Chronological Ages 13 and 14 
Low I. Q. iii.o 121.0 

.834 .679 

High I. Q. 133.0 178.0 

It is clear from the above table that in this study the ratio 
(index) of achievement of low and high I. Q. is nearer to unity 
in every case for the perceptual tests than for the symbol tests. 
This is what would be expected if low and high I. Q. are nearer 
together in achievement on the perceptual than on the symbol 
level. 

This study therefore consists in : 

(1) Quantitative determination of the intelligence of a given 
group. 

(2) Verifying the result by means of teachers' judgments. 

(3) Testing the same group by means of (a) a number of tests 
which are primarily perceptual, and (b) a number of tests which 
are primarily symbolic. 

(4) Comparison of perceptual-test results, and symbol-test re- 
sults, on the basis of the criterion. 

This comparison is made (a) through correlation and (b) 
through the computation of an index denoting per cent of 
capacity. 

By this process it is found (1) that symbol tests surpass per- 
ceptual tests in power of discrimination of degrees of intelligence, 
and (2) that achievement of high and low intelligence is much 
closer together in perceptual than in symbol material. 



MODERN METHODS OF MENTAL MEASUREMENT 83 

The conclusion is made that the study offers evidence in favor 
of the theory of intelligence levels based upon an analysis of 
qualitative differences in judgment regarded as a mental "com- 
mon factor." 

2. In lower school grades. 

This study is of the same form as the other one except that 
the validity of the Binet mental ages and intelligence quotients 
is assumed without the checking by teachers' estimates of intelli- 
gence. This assumption was felt to be justified because the whole 
procedure of determining the Binet results was the same as that 
used in the first study, and it seems safe to believe that the same 
validity is present. 

The value of a second study lies in the confirmatory evidence 
which it furnishes. It would be expected that the same results as 
to correlations and indices of relationship between the achieve- 
ment of low and high I. Q. could be looked for, but with the addi- 
tional feature that the contrasts based upon differences in achieve- 
ment in perceptual and in symbol tests would be expected to be less 
pronounced as a whole in the lower than in upper grades. This is 
so because if the theory of the levels is true, children of all grades 
of endowment will differ less in early years before the power of 
abstraction in any of them has had the chance for development, 
and consequent differentiation, which comes in later years. The 
following data will show how this theory works out. Table I 
gives Binet data (to be used as before as criterion) on 135 lower 
grade cases. 

Table I 

inet in Lower Grades. 

M.A. I.Q. 





Original Data: 


Abbreviated Bine 


Case 


Born 


Tested 
Second Grade 


1 


7/22/12 


1/19/20 


2 


11/19/12 


1 / 19/20 


3 


5/19/03 


1 / 14/20 


4 


12/ 9/1 1 


1/16/20 


5 


6/ 6/11 


1 / 14/20 


6 


10/24/12 


1 / 14/20 


7 


7/17/12 


1 / 16/20 


8 


12/23/ 1 1 


1/13/20 


9 


4/20/12 


1/13/20 


10 


6/20/12 


1/12/20 


11 


2/22/12 


1 / 12/20 


12 


1/12/11 


1/ 1 6/20 



7- 6 


100 


7- 9 


108 


6- 6 


98 


7- 


87 


9- 1 


106 


7- 3 


100 


7- 9 


103 


8- 3 


102 


7- 9 


100 


7- 6 


99 


6-9 


85 


6-3 


69 



84 



JAMES LEROY STOCKTON 







Table I (Continued) 






Case 


Born 


Tested 


M.A. 


I.Q. 




Second Grade (Continued) 






13 


3/30/13 


2/ 2/20 


7- 9 


"3 


14 


5/ 3/i2 


1 / 16/20 


7- 9 


100 


15 


1/21/12 


1 / 14/20 


6-9 


85 


16 


12/ 6/12 


1/14/20 


7- 3 


102 


17 


1/ 8/12 


1 / 14/20 


7- 9 


96 


18 


7/26/12 


1 / 16/20 


7-6 


100 


19 


8/23/12 


1/ 16/20 


8-9 


117 


20 


8/11/11 


1/2 1/20 


9- 6 


112 


21 


8/24/12 


1 / 19/20 


8-3 


in 


22 


1/31/10 


1/2 1/20 


8-9 


88 


23 


10/27/ 1 1 


1/2 1/20 


8- 


98 


24 


2/28/12 


1/22/20 


8- 6 


107 


25 


1/11/13 


1/22/20 


9- 


128 


26 


8/ 1/11 


1/22/20 


9- 


106 


27 


12/10/12 


1/ 4/20 


8- 6 


120 


28 


5/26/12 


1/20/20 


8-3 


107 


29 


6/24/12 


1/23/20 


6-3 


82 


30 


7/ 14/ 12 


1/22/20 


8- 6 


113 


3i 


1/29/13 


1/23/20 


9- 


127 


32 


4/ 6/1 1 


1/30/20 


8- 


91 


33 


7/15/n 


1/23/20 


8-3 


97 


34 


10/13/11 


1/23/20 


7- 3 


87 


35 


2/20/12 


1/22/20 


7- 9 


98 


36 


5/10/11 


1/22/20 


9- 1 


105 


37 


6/ 7/1 1 


1/22/20 


9- 1 


105 


38 


5/ 9/i 1 


1/22/20 


9- 


105 


39 


5/ i/ii 


1/22/20 


8-9 


100 


40 


8/ 8/10 


1/22/20 


7- 3 


77 


4i 


6/ 8/10 


1/22/20 


8- 1 


83 


42 


3/24/12 


1/22/20 


8-10 


112 


43 


4/ 2/11 


1/22/20 


9- 


102 


44 


3/ 2/12 


1/22/20 


9- 4 


117 


45 


5/ 9/12 


2/ 2/20 


9- 


116 


46 


2/21/ 12 


1/22/20 


8- 


101 


47 


1/30/ 1 2 


2/ 2/20 


8-3 


103 


48 


10/ 3/1 1 


1 / 16/20 


8-10 


107 


49 


9/23/ 1 1 


1/ 4/20 


8- 


96 


50 


7/12/12 


1/22/20 


8-3 


109 


51 


9/27/ 1 1 


1/22/20 


8-3 


99 


52 


2/18/12 


1/22/20 


7- 3 


92 


53 


5/29/12 


1/30/20 
Third Grade 


8- 


105 


54 


12/28/10 


1 /i 9/20 


8- 6 


94 


55 


8/ 1/11 


1/ 14/20 


11- 4-5 


135 


56 


6/ 7/1 1 


1 / 16/20 


9- 9 


113 


57 


3/26/1 1 


1/ 15/20 


9- 


102 


58 


8/28/1 1 


1/20/20 


10- 4 


122 


59 


12/13/11 


1/16/20 


9- 


in 


60 


5/10/12 


1/20/20 


8-3 


107 


61 


3/28/1 1 


1/ 14/20 


11- 4 


128 


62 


10/16/10 


1 / 16/20 


io-5 


112 


63 


10/29/ 1 1 


1 / 14/20 


7- 3 


87 


64 


11/ 1/11 


1/20/20 


8-3 


101 


65 


9/10/10 


1/20/20 


11- 3 


120 



MODERN METHODS OF MENTAL MEASUREMENT 



85 





Table I 


(Continued) 








Case 


Born 


Tested 


M.A 


I.Q. 




Third Grade (Continued) 








66 


4/28/1 1 


[/20/20 


7- 


9 


88 


67 


12/19/n 


1/20/20 


9- 


7 


119 


68 


4/ 6/1 1 


1/16/20 


8- 


9 


100 


69 


1/27/10 


[/ 16/20 


9- 


4 


93 


70 


8/30/1 1 


[/ 19/20 


9- 





107 


7i 


11/ 1/11 


r/20/20 


8- 


9 


106 


72 


2/25/ 1 1 


[/19/20 


8- 


9 


99 


73 


2/25/1 1 


[/20/20 


12- 


9-5 


143 


74 


5/23/12 


[/19/20 


11- 


0.5 


144 


75 


7/23/12 


[/ 19/20 


9- 


6 


126 


76 


4/ 1/10 3 


[/ 16/20 


10- 


1 


102 


77 


2/16/12 : 


[/20/20 


9- 





113 


78 


12/12/n ] 


[/ 14/20 


6- 


9 


83 


79 


2/ 3/1 1 ] 


[/ 16/20 


9- 


1 


102 


80 


7/ 3/10 3 


[/16/20 


10- 


2 


107 


81 


2/ 4/11 ; 


[/ 19/20 


10- 


4 


116 


82 


7/21/11 


[/ 16/20 


9- 


3 


109 


83 


9/26/10 3 


[/ 13/20 


8- 


6 


9i 


84 


3/24/10 3 


t/ 19/20 


8- 


3 


84 


85 


7/16/12 3 


[/ 19/20 


10- 


9 


143 


86 


ii/io/io 3 


[/15/20 


9- 4 


102 


87 


9/19/10 ] 


[/16/20 


9- 


6 


102 


88 


8/30/10 ] 


[/20/20 


10- 





106 


89 


7/29/1 I 3 


[/ 15/20 


8- 


9 


103 


90 


7/25/10 3 


[/12/20 


10- 


9 


113 


9i 


12/ 8/08 3 


[/ 14/20 


12- 


5.5 


112 


92 


7/l6/lO 3 


[/15/20 


10- 


1 


106 


93 


7/ i/lO 3 


[/13/20 


9- 


n 


104 


94 


10/ 2/l0 3 


[/15/20 


9- 


3 


100 


95 


I 1/24/08 ] 


[/13/20 


9- 


n 


88 


96 


4/I3/IO 3 


[/15/20 


11- 


10.5 


122 


97 


IO/30/09 ] 


[/15/20 


9- 


7 


93 


98 


12/ 4/08 3 


[/13/20 


10- 


n 


98 


99 


3/l6/lO ] 


[/ 13/20 


9- 


5 


95 


100 


1/30/ IO ] 


/ 14/20 


10- 


5 


105 


101 


2/22/09 ] 


/ 12/20 


10- 


9 


99 


102 


9/ I9/IO ] 


[/12/20 


9- 





96 


103 


4/14/1O ] 


/ 15/20 


8- 


6 


87 


104 


3/20/l I 3 


[/ 14/20 


11- 


4.5 


129 


105 


6/28/09 ] 


/13/20 


9- 


6 


90 


106 


I 1/27/09 ] 


/ 13/20 


8- 


6 


83 


107 


2/ 4/1 I ] 


/13/20 


11- 


6 


129 


108 


5/I9/IO ] 


/13/20 


10- 


9 


in 


109 


12/28/09 J 


/ 13/20 


10- 


6 


105 


no 


3/10/09 ] 


/ 1 4/20 


10- 


8 


98 


III 


Il/12/lO 1 


/ 14/20 


10- 


9 


117 


112 


Il/20/lO ] 


I13I20 


9- 


7 


103 


113 


6/I2/IO ] 


/ 15/20 


10- 


4 


107 


114 


7/29/1O ] 


/ 14/20 


10- 


2 


106 


115 


8/I7/IO 1 


/14/20 


9- 


8 


103 


Il6 


3/ 2/l I ] 


/13/20 


10- 


8 


120 


117 


5/ 5/IO 1 


/ 14/20 


10- 


1 


104 


Il8 


Il/l9/09 ] 


/ 19/20 


9- 


7 


94 



86 JAMES LEROY STOCKTON 



Case Born Tested M.A. I. Q. 

119 8/14/10 1/28/20 10- 9.5 115 

120 1/ 2/10 2/ 2/20 11- o 109 

121 9/12/08 1 1/20/ 19 10- 8 95 

122 5/28/08 11/19/19 10- 2 89 

123 5/27/08 11/21/19 9- 4 81 

124 7/ 6/08 2/ 2/20 10- 5 90 

125 11/ 10/10 1/27/20 14- 5 155 

126 12/28/08 2/ 2/20 10- 1 91 

127 4/ 1/09 1/28/20 10- 8 98 

128 11/22/09 1/27/20 14- 3.5 140 

129 11/ 10/08 1/27/20 9- 1 1 88 

130 8/1 1/07 11/19/19 9- o 73 

131 6/ 6/1 1 1/28/20 10- 8 123 

132 12/15/08 1/26/20 9- 3 83 

133 7/26/09 2/ 3/20 11-20 113 

134 10/18/09 1/26/20 9-1 1 97 

135 4/15/10 2/ 2/20 10- 5 106 

After the Binet data appearing in Table I had been obtained, 
there was given, as before, a group test consisting of single tests, 
part of which were primarily perceptual and part symbol. The 
perceptual tests were (1) symbol digit, (2) picture completion, 
(3) maze, (4) pictorial sequence, and (5) pictorial identities. 
These were simply different standardized forms of the same type 
of tests used in the first study, except for the familiar maze test 
which does not need description. The symbol tests were (1) 
practical judgment, (2) opposites, (3) vocabulary. 

Of the 135 cases for which Binet data are given, 134 took the 
tests just listed, except that because of an epidemic it was possi- 
ble to give the vocabulary test to but 1 1 1 cases. Raw data for 
these cases appear in Table II. 













Table 


II 














Raw 


Data 


for Five Perceptual 


and Three Symbol 


Tests. 












Second Grade 














Perceptual Tests 








Symbol 


Tests 






"ase 


1 


2 


3 


4 


5 


Total 


6 


7 




8 


Tot 


1 


6 


11 





1 


1 


19 


4 


4 








2 


5 


10 


4 


6 


6 


3i 


6 







6 


12 


3 


5 


7 


3 


4 


1 


20 


6 


6 




3 


15 


4 


7 


9 


6 


3 


9 


34 


5 


8 




10 


23 


5 


8 


10 


8 


7 


7 


40 


7 


6 




3 


16 


6 


3 


8 


5 


4 


2 


22 














7 





11 


7 


4 


2 


24 


4 


5 




10 


19 


8 


7 


11 


6 


6 


5 


35 


2 











9 


4 


8 


1 





1 


14 


6 


3 




8 


17 


10 


6 


8 


1 





2 


17 
















11 


2 


3 





1 


1 


7 

















MODERN METHODS OF MENTAL MEASUREMENT 87 

Table II (Continued) 





Perceptual Tests 


■s< 


scona l 


rraae 


Symbol 


Tests 






3ase 


1 


2 


3 


4 


5 


Total 


6 


7 


8 


Total 


12 


5 


8 


2 


1 


2 


18 





6 


2 


8 


13 


5 


9 


5 


2 


1 


22 


4 


5 


7 


16 


14 


6 


2 


3 


4 


1 


16 





4 


6 


10 


15 


6 


6 





6 


4 


22 












16 


7 


11 





5 


1 


24 


5 


6 






17 


6 


4 


7 


6 


2 


25 


3 


6 


8 


17 


18 


7 


7 





6 


1 


21 








5 


5 


19 


8 


10 


8 


5 


9 


40 


5 


5 


9 


19 


20 


7 


10 


5 


7 


3 


32 


10 


5 


8 


23 


21 


7 


9 


5 


6 


7 


34 


8 


7 


8 


23 


22 


7 


6 


4 


4 


1 


22 


6 


4 





10 


23 


8 


8 


5 


2 


1 


24 


5 


6 


12 


23 


24 


6 


11 


7 


4 


6 


34 


10 


4 


9 


23 


25 


6 


9 


6 


6 


7 


34 


8 


9 


9 


26 


26 


6 


9 


8 


4 


6 


33 


5 


5 


2 


12 


27 


4 


9 


5 


5 


3 


26 


9 


3 


3 


15 


28 


7 


9 


5 


6 


3 


30 


7 


5 






29 


7 


6 


7 


4 


4 


28 


4 


5 


8 


17 


30 


6 


9 


2 


6 


7 


30 


2 


7 


13 


22 


31 


9 


6 


3 


6 


6 


30 


5 


3 


12 


20 


32 


3 


12 


6 


7 


2 


30 


5 


3 


4 


12 


33 


6 


7 





7 


5 


25 


7 


5 


17 


29 


34 


8 


2 





4 


1 


15 


5 


6 


5 


16 


35 


3 


9 


4 


1 


2 


19 


3 


2 


4 


9 


36 


8 


8 


7 


4 ' 


9 


36 





6 


13 


19 


37 


7 


11 


7 


7 


6 


38 


8 


6 


3 


17 


38 


7 


10 


6 


7 


2 


32 


7 


6 


14 


27 


39 


7 


10 


6 


7 





30 





5 


13 


18 


40 


7 


6 


4 


3 


2 


22 


3 


4 


8 


15 


41 


8 


9 


8 


7 


7 


39 


4 


3 


6 


13 


42 


4 


11 


7 


5 


9 


36 


4 


4 


4 


12 


43 


6 


8 


6 


6 


4 


30 


7 


4 


13 


24 


44 





10 


5 


6 


5 


26 


3 


4 


20 


27 


45 


8 


12 


5 


5 


2 


32 


9 


8 


17 


34 


46 


6 


6 





2 


2 


16 


2 


4 


12 


18 


47 


9 


9 


5 


5 


3 


31 


9 


3 






48 


8 


9 


2 


7 


8 


34 


7 


6 


8 


21 


49 


7 


10 


7 


7 





3i 


5 


6 


14 


25 


50 


7 


10 


2 


5 


3 


27 








1 


1 


5i 


7 


11 


6 


6 


4 


34 





2 


12 


14 


52 


7 


6 


1 


5 


5 


24 


5 


6 


6 


17 


53 


9 


10 


3 


7 


8 


37 


9 


7 


12 


28 










Third Grade 










54 


6 


10 


6 


5 


9 


36 


9 


7 


11 


27 


55 


7 


12 


9 


5 


9 


41 


8 


6 


12 


26 


56 


8 


12 


3 


6 


8 


37 


10 


9 






57 


6 


7 


4 


3 


5 


25 


8 


6 


13 


27 


58 


10 


10 


7 


6 


5 


38 


7 


6 


13 


26 


59 





9 


4 


4 





17 


8 


5 


9 


22 


60 


6 


8 


7 


5 


8 


34 


8 


7 






61 


6 


11 


4 


6 


5 


32 


9 


8 






62 


7 


12 


8 


4 


4 


35 


9 


7 


20 


36 


63 


8 


11 


8 


5 


4 


36 


6 


4 


20 


30 



88 JAMES LEROY STOCKTON 

Table II (Continued) 
Third Grade (Continued) 





Perceptual Tests 








Symbol Tests 






Case 


1 


2 


3 


4 


5 


Total 


6 


7 


8 


Total 


64 


9 


10 


8 


5 


7 


39 


5 


7 


14 


26 


65 


8 


9 


4 


4 


9 


34 


10 


9 


13 


32 


66 


9 


7 


3 


5 


7 


3i 


8 


8 


12 


28 


67 


8 


11 


4 


7 


6 


36 


9 


4 


15 


28 


68 


8 


12 


7 


7 


4 


38 


10 


6 


10 


26 


69 


6 


12 


6 


7 


9 


40 


7 


3 


17 


27 


70 


6 


8 


5 


5 


7 


3i 


9 


6 






7i 


9 


n 


6 


7 


7 


40 


8 


6 






72 


7 


12 


7 


7 


8 


4i 


10 


3 


16 


29 


73 


8 


10 


6 


7 


7 


38 


10 


10 


26 


46 


74 


8 


12 


7 


6 


9 


42 


10 


9 


17 


36 


75 


5 


10 


3 


2 


9 


29 


9 


6 


9 


24 


76 


7 


n 


5 


7 


4 


34 


8 


9 






77 


7 


10 


7 


7 


5 


36 


6 


9 


17 


32 


78 





10 


7 


5 


7 


29 


6 


5 


13 


24 


79 


6 


12 


5 


6 


8 


37 


6 


9 






80 


8 


n 


9 


7 


7 


42 


9 


7 


20 


36 


81 


9 


n 


7 


7 


9 


43 


10 


7 


9 


26 


82 


8 


n 


8 


5 


6 


38 


9 


6 


25 


40 


83 


3 


9 


4 


5 


6 


27 


8 


5 


13 


26 


84 


9 


12 


9 


6 


1 


37 


9 


4 


13 


26 


85 


8 


8 


6 


5 


9 


36 


10 


8 


22 


40 


86 


8 


12 


4 


7 


7 


38 


9 


7 


9 


25 


87 


8 


10 


9 


5 


8 


40 


7 


6 


17 


30 


88 


5 


8 


6 








19 


8 


6 


22 


36 


89 


10 


10 


9 


7 


6 


42 


9 


8 


19 


36 


90 


n 


n 


7 


6 


8 


43 


9 


9 


13 


31 


9i 


9 


n 


10 


7 


9 


46 


10 


9 


10 


29 


92 


8 


n 


7 


7 


9 


42 


8 


7 


20 


35 


93 


6 


n 


4 


6 


7 


34 


8 


6 


18 


32 


94 


10 


12 


8 


7 


7 


44 


9 


6 


15 


30 


95 


8 


9 


6 


7 


7 


37 


8 


4 


20 


32 


96 


n 


n 


7 


7 


8 


44 


10 


8 


20 


38 


97 


6 


7 


6 


7 


8 


34 


10 


7 


19 


36 


98 


10 


n 


6 


7 


A 


38 


7 


7 


23 


37 


99 


7 


12 


8 


7 


7 


41 


10 


4 


7 


21 


100 


8 


10 


9 


7 


5 


39 


10 


7 






IOI 


8 


n 


6 


7 


6 


38 


9 


9 


13 


3i 


102 


9 


12 


6 


7 


7 


41 


10 


7 


15 


32 


103 


8 


n 


8 


7 


5 


39 


9 


5 


20 


34 


104 


10 


10 


8 


7 


8 


43 


10 


8 


19 


37 


105 


8 


12 


6 


7 


8 


41 


8 


7 


21 


36 


106 


9 


10 


6 


6 


1 


32 


5 


7 






107 


7 


10 


7 


7 


8 


39 


9 


7 






108 


7 


9 


6 


7 


5 


34 


10 


7 


26 


43 


109 


7 


11 


8 


7 


8 


41 


8 


5 






no 


7 


7 


7 


5 


6 


32 


6 


5 


20 


3i 


III 


8 


n 


4 


5 


1 


29 


8 


7 






112 


9 


n 


9 


6 


9 


44 


9 


8 


17 


34 


113 


5 


n 


6 


7 


8 


37 


9 


7 






114 


8 


10 


6 


7 


7 


38 


9 


8 


17 


34 


115 


9 


n 


7 


7 


7 


41 


8 


8 


21 


37 


Il6 


7 


10 


1 


7 


8 


33 


8 


8 


17 


33 


117 


8 


10 


6 


6 


7 


37 


9 


5 






Il8 


8 


10 


3 


7 


7 


35 


9 


7 







MODERN METHODS OF MENTAL MEASUREMENT 89 











Table II (Continued) 


















Fourth Grade 












] 


Perceptual 


Tests 








Symbol Tests 




Case 


1 


2 


3 


4 


5 


Total 


6 


7 


8 


Tot 


121 


8 


10 


7 


7 


4 


36 


7 


9 


11 


27 


122 


7 


11 


5 


7 


9 


39 


8 


6 


18 


32 


123 


7 


9 





6 


7 


29 


8 


4 


16 


28 


124 


10 


12 


9 


6 


8 


45 


9 


8 


14 


3i 


125 


7 


12 


9 


7 


8 


43 


10 


9 


22 


4i 


126 


9 


11 


9 


7 


4 


40 


9 


6 


20 


35 


127 


7 


11 


8 


7 


8 


41 


8 


10 


19 


37 


128 


7 


10 


3 


7 


1 


28 


10 


7 


23 


40 


129 


9 


10 


9 


6 


7 


4i 


9 


9 


14 


32 


131 


9 


11 


9 


7 


9 


45 


6 


7 


17 


30 


132 


10 


9 


3 


6 


1 


29 


8 


8 


14 


30 


133 


12 


11 


6 


7 


9 


45 


10 


9 


19 


38 


134 


9 


12 


6 


7 


6 


40 


10 


7 


21 


38 


135 


9 


10 


5 


6 


4 


34 


8 


2 


19 


29 



On the theory expressed at the beginning of this second study- 
that the contrast between high and low I. Q. would be less in 
lower than in upper grades, one would expect to find coefficients 
of correlation for perceptual tests and for symbol tests not quite 
so far apart as they were in the upper grade study, although he 
would still expect to find that the symbol tests correlated higher 
with mental age than the perceptual tests did. Examination of 
data in Table III (below) will show to what degree this expecta- 
tion is realized. 



Table III 

Correlation of the Individual and the Combined Group Tests with 

Mental Age (Binet). 

I. Perceptual Tests II. Symbol Tests 

I. Symbol Digit 39 I. Practical Judgment 62 

II. Picture Completion 46 II. Opposites 56 

III. Maze 39 III. Vocabulary 72 

IV. Pictorial Sequence 47 

V. Pictorial Identities 39 

Total Perceptual 58 Total Symbol 72 

Comparison of this table with Table V of the first study shows 
that the predicted tendency for the correlation coefficients to run 
lower in lower grades is present especially in the battery of per- 
ceptual tests as compared with the battery of symbol tests. 
Neither battery shows so high a correlation as was shown by the 
corresponding battery in the first study. The relative relationship 
is, however, the same. The perceptual tests are always lower. 



90 JAMES LEROY STOCKTON 

The vocabulary test in this table shows again the highest correla- 
tion found for any single test, but not quite so high as in the for- 
mer study. All of this is significant, but it still needs to be re- 
inforced by the computation of the index showing per cent of 
capacity in the two types of tests. 

As before, in making these contrasts, the cases were first dis- 
tributed by chronological age and I. Q. 











Table IV 














Chronological Age and 


Binet I. 


Q. 






Case 


7 yrs. 


I.Q. 


Case 


8 yrs. 


I.Q. 


Case 


9 yrs. 


I.Q. 


i 


7-6 


100 


4 


8-1 


87 


12 


9-0 


69 


2 


7-2 


108 


5 


8-7 


106 


22 


9-11 


88 


6 


7-3 


IOO 


8 


8-1 


102 


40 


9-5 


77 


7 


7-6 


103 


15 


8-0 


85 


4i 


9-7 


83 


9 


7-9 


IOO 


17 


8-0 


96 


54 


9-i 


94 


10 


7-7 


99 


20 


8-5 


112 


62 


9-3 


112 


ii 


7-n 


85 


23 


8-2 


98 


65 


9-4 


120 


14 


7-8 


IOO 


26 


8-6 


106 


76 


9-10 


102 


16 


7-i 


102 


32 


8-9 


91 


80 


9-6 


107 


18 


7-6 


IOO 


33 


8-6 


97 


83 


9-4 


9i 


19 


7-5 


117 


34 


8-4 


87 


84 


9-10 


84 


21 


7-5 


III 


36 


8-8 


105 


86 


9-2 


102 


24 


7-1 1 


107 


37 


8-8 


105 


87 


9-4 


102 


25 


7-o 


128 


3S 


8-8 


105 


88 


9-5 


106 


27 


7-i 


120 


39 


8-9 


100 


90 


9-6 


113 


28 


7-8 


107 


43 


8-10 


102 


92 


9-6 


106 


29 


7-7 


82 


47 


8-0 


103 


93 


9-6 


104 


30 


7-6 


113 


48 


8-3 


107 


94 


9-3 


100 


3i 


7-o 


127 


49 


8-4 


96 


96 


9-9 


122 


35 


7-n 


98 


5i 


8-4 


99 


99 


9-10 


95 


42 


7-io 


112 


55 


8-5 


135 


100 


9-11 


105 


44 


7-1 1 


117 


56 


8-7 


113 


102 


9-4 


96 


45 


7-9 


116 


57 


8-10 


102 


103 


9-9 


87 


46 


7-n 


101 


58 


8-5 


122 


108 


9-8 


in 


SO 


7-6 


109 


59 


8-1 


in 


in 


9-2 


117 


52 


7-i i 


92 


61 


8-10 


128 


112 


9-2 


105 


53 


7-7 


105 


63 


8-3 


87 


113 


9-7 


107 


6o 


7-8 


107 


64 


8-2 


101 


114 


9-6 


106 


74 


7-8 


144 


66 


8- 9 


88 


"5 


9-5 


103 


75 


7-6 


126 


67 


8-1 


119 


117 


9-8 


104 


77 


7-1 1 


113 


68 


8-9 


100 


119 


9-5 


115 


85 


7-6 


143 


70 


8-5 


107 


125 


9-3 


155 








7i 


8-3 


106 


135 


9-10 


106 








72 


8-10 


99 














73 


8-11 


143 














78 


8-1 


83 














79 


8-1 1 


102 














81 


8-11 


116 














82 


8-6 


109 














89 


8-6 


103 














104 


8-10 


129 














107 


8-1 1 


129 














116 


8-10 


120 














131 


8-8 


123 









MODERN METHODS OF MENTAL MEASUREMENT 91 

The contrasts which follow are based upon an analysis of score 
(for the data see Table II) and chronological age and I. Q. (for 
data see Table IV). The method is the same as that used in the 
first study. 

Table V 
Contrast of Achievement of Low and High I. Q. in Perceptual 

and Symbol Tests. 





Perceptual Tests 
Median Index 


Symbol Tests 
Median In( 


Low I. Q. 
High I. Q. 


Chronological Ages 7 and 8 
29.5 

.843 
350 


20.0 
26.0 


Low I. Q. 

High I. Q. 


Chronological Ages 8 and 9 
30.0 

.789 
38.0 


23.0 

•7 
32.0 



Indices for other contrasts are as follows: (Index for total 
perceptual tests differs from that just given above because dif- 
ferent number of cases were used). 

Table VI 

Perceptual Tests Symbol Tests 6 and 7 
Index Index 

Yrs. 7, 8 .805 .666 

Yrs. 8, 9 .786 .656 

Perceptual Tests . Symbol Tests 8 alone 

Index Index 

Yrs. 7, 8 .843 .720 

Yrs. 8, 9 .789 . .588 

In all of these contrasts the index for symbol tests is smaller 
than that for perceptual tests. This showing is therefore in all 
cases favorable to the original proposition that the achievement 
of low and high intelligence would be found closer together on 
the perceptual than on the symbol level. It should be noted, how- 
ever, that the contrasts in these lower grades tend to be narrower 
than the ones previously shown for upper grades. This is in line 
with the theory previously expressed that mere age itself (as well 
as difference in high and low I. Q.) makes a difference in achieve- 
ment in perceptual tests contrasted with symbol tests. 

The study therefore consists in the same steps as those out- 



92 JAMES LEROY STOCKTON 

lined for the first study, and the conclusion from it is the 
same, with additional evidence of the relationship of high and low- 
school grade achievement. Thus it seems that the quantitative 
data presented in the two studies strengthen the conclusion pre- 
viously arrived at through the theoretical survey of the field, and 
through the examination of evidences in the work of other inves- 
tigators. It is fully appreciated that the number of cases used 
has been relatively small, and that the evidence furnished cannot 
be conceived to be finally conclusive. It is believed, however, that 
the evidence is now strong enough to warrant a definite convic- 
tion that further experimentation will confirm the tendencies 
shown in these studies. The relation of these conclusions to 
theories of intelligence and of intelligence measurement will be 
taken up in the next chapter. 



CHAPTER VI 

Modern Methods of Mental Measurement 
/. The evolution of modern methods. 

I. A SUMMATION OF MODERN TENDENCIES 

The intention here is not that of giving an exhaustive account 
of every attempt which has been made to measure intelligence; 
but rather that of identifying significant modern movements, and 
of pointing out definite tendencies, which have led to a present 
prevailing attitude toward the problem. 

Previous to the early years of the twentieth century, diagnosis 
of mental subnormality was made mostly either by physicians 
from the medical standpoint, or by teachers from the pedagogical 
standpoint. There was very little of the psychological, except as 
it was implied in the others. Moreover, neither the medical nor 
the pedagogical diagnosis had much of the exact quantitative 
about it; but both were made mostly in the form of estimate, per- 
sonal opinion, or approximation, very much akin to such estimates 
of distance as those expressed in terms of "a stone's throw," "a 
day's travel," etc. There were no standardized units and there- 
fore no reliable, comparable results. It is true that degrees of 
feeblemindedness were discriminated in such words as idiot, im- 
becile, or the French "debile"; but the patient called imbecile by 
one physician might be called idiot or debile by another. There 
was no common ground upon which the diagnosis was made. 
The degrees of feeblemindedness were named in words of psycho- 
logical import, but were sometimes defined in physiological or 
anatomical terms (brain lesion, control of bodily functions, mo- 
tility, locomotion, prehension, appetite, respiration, secretion, cir- 
culation, or bodily stigmata) and sometimes in terms of specific 
mental functions (sensation, perception, will attention, etc.). 

All of these attempts to define feeblemindedness, and its de- 



94 JAMES LEROY STOCKTON 

grees, resulted in little attention to the need for defining intelli- 
gence, or for getting at its fundamental nature. It was apparently 
taken for granted that since intelligence is the opposite of feeble- 
mindedness it was therefore well enough understood what intelli- 
gence is. Yet, both for feeblemindedness and intelligence, no 
terms at all would have been safer than the ones in use, because 
the very vagueness of the customary terminology gave a mislead- 
ing impression of defmitness. Such vagueness even made it pos- 
sible to confuse feeblemindedness (retarded mentality) with in- 
sanity (unbalanced mentality), a thing which could not happen 
at the present time except among those entirely uninitiated in the 
field. 

It is true that in the latter part of the nineteenth century a 
movement appeared which had in it more of the psychological 
and more of the exact quantitative. It is now known, however, 
that this psychological movement was fundamentally on the 
wrong track in so far as intelligence was concerned, although it 
had in it something which has survived. The movement in ques- 
tion showed two aspects : ( i ) the determination of intelligence 
through the exact laboratory measurement of individual mental 
and physical traits found to be correlated with the estimates, opin- 
ions, and approximations previously mentioned; and (2) the de- 
termination of intelligence through the summation of the results 
of exact quantitative measurement of mental traits regarded as 
elements. Thus intelligence was tacitly held to be equal to the 
sum of one's quantitatively measured sensation, perception, 
memory, etc. 

The first of these tendencies (the correlation of intelligence 
with mental and physical traits) holds its place today as a val- 
uable supplement to the scientific measurement of intelligence 
itself. The second has been discarded along with the "faculty" 
psychology out of which it sprang, except that the mental ele- 
ment or trait, regarded as a unit-mental activity, still holds a 
very important place when viewed from a different angle. 

However, the real revolution in the definition and measure- 
ment of intelligence came when, through the genius of Binet, all 
criteria of intelligence (the medical criterion, the social criterion, 



MODERN METHODS OF MENTAL MEASUREMENT 95 

the pedagogical criterion) were made subordinate to a perfected 
quantitative psychological criterion based upon the theory of gen- 
eral intelligence. The essence of this idea of general intelligence 
has already been given in the quotations of a previous chapter 
which deals with judgment as the common factor in intel- 
ligence and with the relation of the separate mental functions to 
intelligence. The customary exaggerated reliance upon the de- 
termination of amount of intelligence through its correlation 
with mental and physical traits was reduced to its rightful minor 
place, and the attempt to determine the amount of intelligence 
through the summation of mental traits was shown to be faulty. 
Then a relatively exact quantitative scale for the measurement of 
general intelligence was made. This scale is too well known to 
need description here. It was based upon judgment as a common 
factor in all intelligent acts, and although Binet did not hold ab- 
solutely to the use of problems involving judgment, the follow- 
ing quotation shows that, at bottom, that was his intention. 

* "As a result of all this investigation, in the scale which we 
present we accord the first place to judgment; that which is of 
importance to us is not certain errors which the subject commits, 
but absurd errors, which prove that he lacks judgment. We have 
even made special provision to encourage people to make absurd 
replies. In spite of the accuracy of this directing idea, it will be 
easily understood that it has been impossible to permit of its 
regulating exclusively our examinations. For example, one can- 
not make tests of judgment on children of less than two years 
when one begins to watch their first gleams of intelligence. Much 
is gained when one can discern in them traces of coordination, the 
first delineation of attention and memory. We shall therefore 
bring out in our lists some tests of memory ; but so far as we are 
able, we shall give these tests such a turn as to invite the subject 
to make absurd replies, and thus under cover of a test of memory, 
we shall have an appreciation of their judgment. " 

Binet's two proposals : ( i ) to make exact quantitative measure- 
ment of general intelligence; and (2) his later adopted plan of 
grouping together at one age all of the tests normal for that age, 
*The Development of Intelligence, Vineland Laboratory, page 43. 



96 JAMES LEROY STOCKTON 

have proved to be the dominant features of modern intelligence 
measurement. The only notable competitor is what is known as 
the "Point Scale System" which adopts the idea of general intelli- 
gence, but rejects the chronological-mental age classification, and 
measures intelligence in "points won". But this proposal has been 
shown by Otis and by others to be not fundamentally different 
from the Binet method. 

Binet's work was first introduced to this country by Goddard, 
who made an American revision of it. Kuhlmann and others 
have also offered revisions; but the last and easily the most uni- 
versally successful and important is Terman's Stanford Revision. 

Important variations of the Binet plan appear in the "perfor- 
mance scales" and in group intelligence testing. The former have 
been referred to in previous chapters, especially as to their 
relation to levels in intentionally controlled intelligence. 
It needs to be emphasized here that these scales, built either 
upon the Binet plan or upon the essentially similar "point 
scale" plan, have great potential value for the measurement of 
non-English speaking foreigners, of the illiterate, the deaf, etc., 
but as general scales of intelligence they fail because they fea- 
ture, in the main, the perceptual level only. Since it has been 
shown to be probable that both high and low intelligence can work 
at this level, it might be possible to get differentiation by the use 
of very many graded and especially carefully standardized tests; 
but this would not be an economical method in comparison with 
scales which use more abstract material. Neither would it be 
logical to attempt entirely to overcome the difficulty by compli- 
cating perceptual tests with abstract factors, although under cer- 
tain conditions this approach is well worth while. Therefore the 
performance scale is inadequate as a total plan for grading intelli- 
gence, but it remains an essential subsidiary element for use under 
certain special conditions: 

Examples of the most commonly known of the performance 
tests are those of Pintner and Patterson, Healy, Knox, Sten- 
quist, and Kent. The Porteus maze tests are of this nature 
also ; but are complicated more than some of the others by abstract 
requirements. They therefore are proportionately valuable, al- 



MODERN METHODS OF MENTAL MEASUREMENT 97 

though the narrow range of judgment tested by them makes it de- 
sirable that they should be used as an element in a scale with other 
tests rather than by themselves. 

As to modern group testing, it may be said that it was first 
introduced by Otis, that it adapts for group work certain tests 
similar to the individual Binet tests, and that it involves no new 
principles antagonistic to the Binet, although Otis suggests sup- 
plementary mathematical bases which provide for what he terms 
"an absolute point scale" in distinction from the point scale of 
the Yerkes-Bridges type. There can be no doubt that the more 
rapid work which the group method permits makes it of supreme 
importance, since it can be used for the bulk of the work with 
large numbers and the special cases can then be handled through 
individual tests. 

Some of the best known of the group tests are those of Otis, 
and the army tests based primarily upon the Otis tests. The lat- 
ter show the same tendency to divide into perceptual and symbol 
tests as has already been noted in the individual tests, and the fun- 
damental reason for the division is the same. Illiterates and for- 
eigners in the army could not be handled on the basis of tests re- 
quiring much use of language. Hence the development of the 
army group test Beta, and the utilization in the army also of many 
of the individual performance tests of the type of the Pintner 
and Patterson, Healy, Stenquist, Porteus, and others. Other 
group tests of the same general character as the army tests are 
the Pressey tests, the Haggerty tests, the Myers Mental Measure, 
the new National Research Council tests, Terman's Mental Abil- 
ity tests for grades VII to XII, etc. 

But all mental measurement of today has swung to the Binet 
principles, and the Binet criterion easily remains the dominating 
force in modern intelligence measurement. However, the results 
from the Binet tests, and their variations, are supplemented wher- 
ever possible by other psychological, pedagogical, and neurological 
data. There is also, where possible, a provision for retests, and 
for a period of observation of the subject before the final inter- 
pretation is made of the data. Persons with little more than a 
clerk's knowledge of the standard procedure can do much in the 



98 JAMES LEROY STOCKTON 

gathering of data, but where serious issues are involved, the 
interpretation calls for the widest experience and training in psy- 
chology and in the related sciences involved. 

2. SOME GENERAL SIDE LIGHTS ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE 

MODERN VIEW. 

But the modern view has come only as the culmination of a 
long conflict with the former preconceptions concerning intelli- 
gence. A brief discussion of the most salient points of this con- 
flict will still further clarify the situation. There was for a long 
time (and one might almost say that there still is) a tendency 
to cling to the earlier medical and psychiatric conceptions wherein 
the criteria of feeblemindedness are expressed in physical, medi- 
cal, social, or vague psychological terms rather than in the more 
definite concept of general intelligence and mental age. Binet's 
work was well along in France by 1908, yet in that year "The 
British Royal Commission on the Feebleminded" defined that 
class as "persons who may be capable of earning a living under 
favorable circumstances, but who are incapable from mental de- 
fect existing from birth or from an early age: (a) of competing 
on equal terms with their normal fellows; or (b) of managing 
themselves and their affairs with ordinary prudence". Such a 
definition, though vaguely psychological as well as social, is open 
to any interpretation which varying conditions and the personal 
equation of the physician or the psychiatrist may develop. It has 
nothing of the stability which is possessed by a mental age estab- 
lished through the use of a standardized scale. 

But even Tredgold's original formulation was of the same 
order, although it included incomplete cerebral development 
(psychological criterion) as well as mental defect. Even as late 
as 1 9 14 he defined amentia as "a state of restricted potentiality 
for, or arrest of, cerebral development, in consequence of which 
the person affected is incapable at maturity of so adapting himself 
to his environment or to the requirements of the community, as 
to maintain existence independently of external support." Thus 
in this definition there is the vague psychological criterion, the 
medical or physiological criterion, the social criterion, and also 



MODERN METHODS OF MENTAL MEASUREMENT 99 

the more modern criterion of "adaptation"; and yet all are so 
indefinite as not to compare in any way with more exact scientific 
measurement based upon a standard psychological scale. 

There has persisted also an effort to determine amount of in- 
telligence through the correlation with bodily and mental traits 
and through the summation of mental traits measured quantita- 
tively. The former is valuable if recognized and given its rightful 
subordinate position. Much good work has been done along this 
line as supplementary to diagnosis by the Binet and similar scales. 

As to the attempt to get at intelligence through the quantitative 
summation of mental traits, it may be said that this is less and 
less in evidence. Some of the important places where it has 
tended to persist are the profile method of Rossilimo (1912), 
the tachistoscopic method proposed by Netschajeff (191 7), and 
in the Yerkes-Bridges Point Scale. The authors of the latter 
arrange tests according to individual functions, but that part of 
their work has had little emphasis or apparent success and the 
scale has filled an important place through its resemblance to the 
Binet method, rather than because of the feature under discus- 
sion. Indeed such an effort can only have success when the sub- 
ject is tested, not for the amount of the function, but for his 
ability to solve problems in terms of the function; and although 
this may have really been what the Yerkes-Bridges scale was 
meant to do, the authors do not make it clear that such was their 
idea. 

3. CERTAIN MINOR AND MAJOR VIEWS AND STUDIES IN CONFIR- 
MATION OF THE EXISTENCE OF A COMMON FACTOR 
FOR INTELLIGENCE. 

Meumann, Stern, and Ebbinghaus have, in a general way, 
presented the idea of a common factor, particularly in the defini- 
tions which they give of intelligence. Meumann, as interpreted 
by Terman, presents a two-fold definition: "From the psycho- 
logical point of view, intelligence is the power of independent and 
creative elaboration of new products out of the material given by 
memory and the senses. From the practical point of view, it in- 
volves the ability to avoid error, to surmount difficulties, and to 



ioo JAMES LEROY STOCKTON 

adjust to environment." Stern says that intelligence is "the gen- 
eral capacity of an individual consciously to adjust his thinking 
to new requirements; it is general adaptability to new problems 
and conditions of life." Ebbinghaus, as a result of the Breslau 
investigation in 1905, came to take a view of intelligence which 
emphasized the ability to combine dissociated elements into a 
meaningful whole. He called this "combinative ability", and de- 
•veloped a tentative method for testing it, through asking the 
subject to fill in elisions in mutilated prose. This method has 
been further developed in many ways since that time, and is a 
common feature as a single test among groups of tests in most 
modern systems. Sentence completion, picture completion, etc., 
are variations of this test. 

Intelligence has also been conceived as synonymous with a com- 
mon mental factor called attention, clear awareness, concentration, 
etc. ; and with other single mental factors ; but it is very easy to 
believe that Meumann, Stern, Ebbinghaus, and other authorities 
of major importance support, in effect, the view of Binet which 
makes judgment the essential and common factor. Where other 
factors are named it seems clear that their advocates have defin- 
itely, even if unconsciously, identified intelligence with judgment 
and simply have made a further identification of what they con- 
ceive the central element in the process. 

But the most convincing evidence of the existence of the com- 
mon factor is the mathematical proof found in the correlational 
studies of such writers as Abelson, Burt, and Hart and Spear- 
man. As to the essential nature of this generally conceded com- 
mon factor there is a certain amount of disagreement. Abelson 
(1911) leaned toward "clear awareness", the lack of which in 
any case he refers to cerebral impairment. Burt supports essen- 
tially the same view when in his earlier work ( 191 1) he combines 
Binet's tendency to emphasize the power of voluntary attention, 
with McDougairs view of the physiological factors in attention. 
But Burt also emphasizes judgment, reasoning, seeing relations, 
as the most fundamental things in intelligence, and suggests a scale 
of tests featuring all processes from the highest to the lowest 
(regarding reasoning as the highest). Thus he demands both 



MODERN METHODS OF MENTAL MEASUREMENT 101 

complexity and range, with reasoning given the most weight. 
The difference between this view and that which has been urged 
in these pages lies in the fact that Burt appears to see levels of 
intelligence delimited by quantity of judgment ability, while 
herein the levels discriminated depend upon quality of judgment 
ability. 

Spearman and Hart (see British Journal of Psychology, March 
1912) discuss three views of the common factor: (1) non-focal, 
(2) multi-focal, and (3) uni-focal. In the first, abilities are re- 
garded as absolutely specific, and therefore non-correlating, ex- 
cept in cases where, by chance, like elements happen to be present 
in the different performances. In the second, faculties, types, or 
levels are regarded by them as furnishing foci of likenesses, and 
therefore of groups of correlations, such as might be expected 
from Thorndike's theory of levels of sensitivity, association, and 
dissociation. In the third there is assumed to be a common 
factor in all performances, and therefore all performances may be 
expected to correlate to the extent to which the common factor is 
present. 

While admitting the essential truth of the Spearman and Hart 
position, there are several observations which may be made. ( 1 ) 
The non-focal theory can, as they say, probably safely be dis- 
carded. Modern psychological investigation by Coover, Angell, 
Rugg, and others supports this conclusion. (2) The opinion of 
Spearman and Hart that the multi-focal theory is necessarily an- 
tagonistic to the uni-focal theory is not necessarily true if one ad- 
mits the view that the common factor, judgment, extends through 
all intelligence; but that in a certain part of the field the quality 
of judgment is mechanical (thus differentiating mechanically con- 
trolled intelligence), and in another part of the field, purposive 
(thus differentiating intentionally controlled intelligence). 
Thorndike's sensitivity and association levels would then seem 
to belong to the field of mechanically controlled intelligence, while 
his dissociation (free idea) level, would seem to belong to inten- 
tionally controlled intelligence. Moreover in the field of inten- 
tionally controlled intelligence, the common factor, judgment, 
may again be conceived as determining levels according to the 



102 JAMES LEROY STOCKTON 

quality of the mental elements (sensations, percepts, images, sym- 
bols) between which relationships are discerned. (3) The theory 
thus interpreted does not involve "faculty" psychology if the men- 
tal elements considered are thought of as unit-activities of a total 
mind. (4) The whole theory supports the Binet view. It is true 
that Binet called the common factor judgment, and Spearman and 
Hart (and others) define it in terms of cortex energy, etc., but 
this may be viewed as only a case of psycho-physical parallelism 
in the analysis of which one person speaks in terms of the mental 
correlate, and the other in terms of the physical correlate. When 
the cortical change comes, the judgment is exercised. It is not 
necessary to postulate that one is caused by the other, but only 
that one accompanies the other. 

Hence, there is a very generally supported view of the existence 
of a common factor, which factor can, roughly at least, be meas- 
ured objectively and expressed through the use of an age scale; 
and the Binet scale is the basis and universally used expression of 
the theory. 

II. Possible results of the theory upon methods of mental 

measurement. 

It should now be clear that the key to the theory proposed 
by the thesis is (1) such a definition of intelligence as 
makes non-predictable variation the paramount thing in 
it; (2) the acceptance of the theory of a common factor re- 
sponsible for non-predictable variation, and quantitatively measur- 
able in terms of an age scale; (3) an appeal to the literature and to 
original quantitative experimentation in support of a new under- 
standing of intelligence based upon an analysis of qualitative dif- 
ferences in the common factor. Primarily the qualitative differ- 
ences appealed to are referred to differences in power to handle 
the concrete and the abstract. The reader should hold it definitely 
in mind that no claim of originality is here made for the theory 
that intelligence is conditioned by different degrees of control over 
the concrete and the abstract. It has been shown that the intuitive 
psychology of the layman ferreted out that fact long ago. But an 
attempt has here been made to show the connection of this popular 



MODERN METHODS OF MENTAL MEASUREMENT 103 

conception with that of psychological levels differentiated by vary- 
ing abilities to manipulate judgment in terms of the mechanical 
and the intentional, and in terms of different unit-mental-activities 
within the intentional. Assuming that a certain amount of proof 
has been offered in favor of the hypothesis of levels conditioned 
by these qualitative differences in the common factor, and that 
there is at least a strong probability that the theory is true, the 
following practical bearings of this conclusion upon methods of 
mental measurement are suggested. 

I. EMPHASIS UPON THE VALUE OF THE LANGUAGE TEST. 

One result of the study is to emphasize the value of the lan- 
guage test as an intelligence test. By language test is not meant 
the mere mechanical flow of words; but instead a genuine com- 
mand of language as the tool of thought. There has been a grow- 
ing tendency in intelligence measurement to try to get away from 
the language test. This tendency has been one reason for the devel- 
opment and use of performance scales even with subjects who 
labor under no handicap with regard to language ability. How- 
ever, the desire to minimize the language factor has had its origin 
largely in the fact that owing to their ability to put many words 
together, the feebleminded have often been found to give an im- 
pression of an intelligence which they do not really possess. Ideas 
expressed in language have two phases : (a) the word, or symbol, 
and (b) the meaning of the word or symbol. The feebleminded 
often have the first of these without the second. When the me- 
chanical use of language can be sufficiently guarded against, lan- 
guage ability becomes one of the best evidences of intelligence, of 
ability to work on the symbol level in contrast to the perceptual 
level. 

2. TENDENCY TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF MORE DIAGNOSTIC SCALES 

OF INTELLIGENCE BASED UPON THE SEPARATE SCALING OF 

QUALITATIVE DIFFERENCES IN THE COMMON FACTOR. 

It seem likely that as a supplement to the single scale which 
now features mechanically controlled intelligence, intentionally 
controlled intelligence, and reproductive (pedagogical) intelli- 



104 JAMES LEROY STOCKTON 

gence, together, there will tend to appear also separate scales of 
these three types of intelligence constructed upon the same prin- 
ciples. In fact such an outcome is already in evidence. Repro- 
ductive, or pedagogical scales have become common; and De 
Sanctis, even as early as 191 1, suggested the distinction between 
"lower ideation" and "higher ideation". This distinction cor- 
responds in intent at least roughly to the mechanically controlled 
intellligence and intentionally controlled intelligence which have 
been discussed. The idea has also of late appeared in concrete 
operation in the work of Link and others in employment psychol- 
ogy. The investigators in this field have found it necessary to 
develop separate scales of technique and of intelligence; or, in 
other words, separate scales of mechanically controlled intelli- 
gence and of intentionally controlled intelligence. The very fact 
that practical application of tests has brought out the demand for 
three types of scales is in itself a degree of proof of the theory as 
outlined; and there is added proof in the tendency of modern 
students of intelligence to stress the intentional and immediate so- 
lution of problems as the central thing in intelligence. It is the 
central thing in the highest type of intelligence, the type dif- 
ferentiated by judgment of the intentionally controlled quality. 
The present Binet scale, or any other perfected upon the same 
principles, can give a result which shows only a total mental age. 
One can ascertain that a subject is excellent or normal or feeble- 
minded by comparison with chronological age, but neither the 
Binet mental age nor the intelligence quotient derived from it shows 
specifically wherein the excellence or the defect of the subject con- 
sists. The situation is similar to that which has developed with 
pedagogical scales. Take for example the field of handwriting. 
Thorndike's scale of "general merit" in handwriting is directly 
comparable with the Binet scale of general ability in intelligence. 
The scale measures a total ability, but does not attempt to be 
analytic or diagnostic as to particular faults. Such a scale has 
many values (and always will have), as "general merit" hand- 
writing scales have abundantly proved ; but it has been necessary 
for diagnostic purposes to develop supplementary scales of sep- 



MODERN METHODS OF MENTAL MEASUREMENT 105 

arate elements of handwriting excellence such as the Ay res di- 
vision into slants and the more extended Freeman division into a 
larger number of parallel scales of important elements. With an 
opportunity to scale a pupil's handwriting by the several scales of 
the elements, that pupil's special difficulty can be located and the 
correct assistance given. 

It seems probable therefore that there should be developed a 
scale or a system of scales which would measure separately not 
only mechanical, pedagogical, and purposive intelligence, but 
Which also (in purposive intelligence at least) would measure 
separately the ability to judge (a) in terms of perceptual ma- 
terial, and (b) in terms of imaginal material, and (c) in terms 
of symbol material. Such a series of scales would be much 
more diagnostic than the general scales now in existence, 
would help correctly to place subjects in life, and, by more 
nearly locating the defect would lead the way to* a more 
effective study of possible remedies for mental defects. This is 
extremely important, for it is not impossible that the present 
view of the permanency of mental defect needs at least partial 
revision. At least they need very extended and critical testing, 
and the more definite analysis which would be possible through the 
qualitative extension of the scales would be a very important as- 
sistance in this work. 

3. INCREASED TENDENCY TO SPECULATE UPON THE PROBLEM AS 

TO WHETHER THE DEVELOPMENT OF INTELLIGENCE 

CEASES SOON AFTER ADOLESCENCE. 

The emphasis upon judgment as the common factor in intelli- 
gence, and upon levels of intelligence determined by qualitative 
differences in the mental elements concerning which judgment is 
rendered, may throw light upon the vexed question as to whether 
the development of intelligence ceases at about the chronological 
age of sixteen or eighteen as the Binet theory tends to hold. All 
experiments with Binet material and procedure have tended to sus- 
tain this view. They have not brought out reliable evidences of 
increment beyond the point mentioned. Hence there is the in- 
ference that mental growth reaches approximately its maximum, 



106 JAMES LEROY STOCKTON 

as does physical growth, a few years after adolescence. Of course 
there may be after this time an increase in the ability to get the 
most out of the intelligence which one has, just as one may learn 
to make better and better use of his physique even after physical 
growth ceases ; but to distinguish between increase in intelligence 
itself and increase in one's power to use a fixed amount of intelli- 
gence appears to some persons as, in a sense, a begging of the 
question. For, off hand, one tends to believe that if a college 
senior can solve more real problems than he could when he was 
a high school senior, then by that very fact he is to be judged 
actually more intelligent. By the same criterion he might be 
found more intelligent when he is chronologically forty than at 
the time of his graduation from college. 

Yet the point in question is exactly the one just raised. Does a 
person show more success in problem-solving at forty than at 
sixteen or eighteen? Possibly the answer lies in asking whether 
one means more problem-solving or better (or different) problem- 
solving. Thus perhaps it is again a question between quantity and 
quality. In this thesis the view has been supported that the power 
to deal with abstractions must show development around about 
twelve years (chronologically) or else the subject is marked as 
mentally inferior. That is, he must begin to exhibit a certain 
quality of judgment at about that time or he is defective. By the 
time he is sixteen or eighteen the Binet tests seem to show that his 
power of abstraction is developed about as far as it ever will be, 
that significant increase in intelligence beyond this age does not 
seem to occur. Perhaps this appears to hold (a) because the pecu- 
liar quality of abstract judgment (organizing power) required 
to earn the new increment of intelligence is not tested by the 
Binet tests; and (b) because the peculiar quality of abstract judg- 
ment in question is so rare that it is easily missed by any system 
of tests. There is a type of abstract synthesis which requires not 
minutes or hours, but months, years, or a lifetime. Many of the 
world's supreme problems have been solved by men who have 
shown a peculiar, dogged persistency in pursuing an idea until its 
relation to other ideas and their relation to it became apparent. 
Speed is not an element in such a feat. The essence of the 



MODERN METHODS OF MENTAL MEASUREMENT 107 

achievement is judgment of a peculiar organizing type, which sees 
through insignificant details and finally seizes upon the really sig- 
nificant factors. It may be, therefore, that after types of intelli- 
gence are differentiated on the qualitative basis of perceptual, 
imaginal, and symbolic, it will be necessary to distinguish a 
higher qualitative differentiation within the symbolic itself, which 
the limitation of brief time for testing, and incomplete insight into 
values, have left still untapped by any exact quantitative measure- 
ment. Perhaps it is too elusive to be tapped. At any rate, one 
may, if he so desires, speculate upon its existence, and he is 
likely to do so if he is not fully satisfied with the other view that 
intelligence ceases to develop at the age of sixteen or eighteen 
years. This speculation concerning a real increase in intelligence 
itself, an increase based upon qualitative differences in the power 
of abstract thought, is possibly not antagonistic to the essential 
Binet principles but merely supplementary to them. 

III. Summary. 

In this thesis it has been held : 

1. That the problem of intelligence is within the problem of 
adaptation. 

2. That not all adaptation, but only non-predictable adaptation 
is intelligent. 

3. That in all non-predictable adaptation there is a common 
factor, judgment. 

4. That sometimes the quality of judgment is mechanical and 
sometimes intentional. 

5. That if the term intelligence is used at all with reference 
to mechanically controlled judgment, the qualified expression 
mechanically controlled intelligence should be used. 

6. That intentionally controlled judgment should be called 
intentionally controlled intelligence. 

j. That intentionally controlled intelligence itself exists in 
levels determined in popular language by different degrees of con- 
creteness and abstract ioness involved in the exercise of the com- 
mon factor. 

8. That the terms concrete and abstract are only popular ex- 
pressions for the more technical psychological terms which desig- 
nate unit-mental-activities. 



io8 JAMES LEROY STOCKTON 

9. That there could be discriminated as many levels in inten- 
tionally controlled intelligence as there are distinct unit-mental- 
activities ; but that it is expedient to discriminate but three levels — 
the perceptual level, the image level, and the symbol level. 

A degree of proof of the existence of the levels has been offered 
(a) by reference to existing literature, and (b) by original quanti- 
tative research. The conclusion is drawn that more diagnostic 
testing of intelligence could be done if the exising age-scales of 
general intelligence were supplemented by scales which test for 
ability on the different levels. 

The main contributions are (a) greater insight into the defini- 
tion and nature of intelligence, and (b) the pointing of the way 
toward more diagnostic measurement of intelligence through the 
provision for measurement based upon the levels determined by 
qualitative differences in the common factor, judgment. 



TYPICAL GENERAL REFERENCES 

Abelson, A. R., Measurement of Mental Ability of Backward 

Children, Br. Jr. Psychol., 4, 191 1. 
Adams, G. P., On the Negative and Positive Phototropism of the 

Earthworm, Am. Jr. Physiol., 9, 26. 
Angell, J. R., Chapters from Modern Psychology, Longmans, 

1912. 

, An Introduction to Psychology, Holt, 1918. 

~ Baldwin, B. T., Differentiation Between Psychological Experi- 
ments and Mental Test., Report of Am. Psychol. Asso., 

1916. 
Baldwin, J. Mark, Mental Development, Macmillan, 1894. 
, The Development of Animal Psychology, Congres. 

int. de Zool., 191 4. 
, Social and Ethical Interpretations, Macmillan, 1897- 

1902. 
Balz, A. G. A., Dualism and Early Modern Philosophy, Jr. 

Philos., Psychol., etc., 1918, 15. 
— Bell, J. C, Recent Literature on the Binet Tests, Jr. Ed. Psychol., 

3, 1912. 
Binet, Alfred, et Simon, Th., Sur la necessite d'etablir un 

diagnostique seientifique des etats inferieurs de l'intelligence, 

L'Annee psychologique, 19 15, 163-190. See also pages 

191-244, and 245-336. 
, Le Developement de l'intelligence chez les enf ants, 

L'Annee psychologique, 1908, 1-94. 
, Nouvelles recherches sur la mesure du niveau in- 

tellectuel chez les enfants d'ecole, L'Annee psychologique, 

191 1, 145-201. 
Binet, Alfred, Les Signes physiques de l'intelligence des enfants, 

L'Annee psychologique, 19 10. 
, Les Frontieres anthropometriques des anormaux, Bu. 

Soc. Et. Ps. Enf., 1904. 
, Attention et adaptation, L'Anne psychologique, 1900; 

248-404. 
Boardman, H., (Compiler), Psychological Tests, a Bibliography, 

N. Y., Bureau Ed. Experiments, 19 17. 



no JAMES LEROY STOCKTON 

Bobertag, O., Ueber Intelligenzpriifungen, Zeitschrift fur ange- 

wande Psychologie, 191 1, 5. 
Bohn, G., Actions tropiques de la lumiere, c. r. Soc. Biol., Paris, 

t. 55. 
, Theorie nouvelle du phototropisme, c. r. Academy 

Science, t. 139. 
Bonser, F. G., The Reasoning Ability of Children, Columbia 

University, Contributions, No. 37. 
Book, W. F., Analysis of Some of the Higher Thought Pro- 
cesses, Psych. Bui., 1912, 9. 
Brigham, C. C., Two Studies in Mental Tests, Psychological 

Monographs, 19 17, 24. 
, An Experimental Critique of the Binet-Simon Scale, 

Jr. Ed. Psychol., 5, 1914. 
Buckingham, Correlation Between Ability to Think and to Re- 
member, Schl. and Soc, 191 7, 5. 
Burt, C, Experimental Tests of General Intelligence, Br. Jr. 

Psychol., 3, 1909. 
, Experimental Tests of the Higher Mental Processes, 

Jr. Exper. Ped., 191 1, 1. 
Carus, P., In Reply to Dualistic Conceptions of Mind, Monist, 

1918, 28. 
Cellerier, L., L'Habitude dans l'education, L'Educ, 191 6. 
Chase, H. W., Consciousness and the Unconscious, Psyc. Bui., 

1916. 
Chotzen, F., Die Intelligenzprufungsmethode, Zeitschrift fiir 

angewande Psychologie, 1912, 6. 
Clifford, W. K., Lectures and Essays, London, 1886. 
Cohen, M. R., The Distinction Between the Mental and the 

Physical, Jr. Phil., Psychol., etc., 191 7, 14. 
Colvin, S. S., The Attitude of the Child in Learning, N. E. A., 

1914. 
Coover, J. E., Formal Discipline, Psych. Mon., 1912, No. Sy. 

For other material on the same topic see also bibliographies 

in this book. 
Dashiell, J. F., Sixteen Origins of the Mind, Am. Jr. Psychol., 

1918, 29. 
Dearborn, W. F., The Measurement of Intelligence, Psyc. Bui., 

1917, 14. 
De Busk, Height, Weight, Vital Capacity, and Retardation, Ped. 

Sem., 1913, 20. 
Decroly and Degand, Archives de Psychologie, Jan., 1910. 



MODERN METHODS OF MENTAL MEASUREMENT III 

De Sanctis, S., Mental Development and Measure of the Level of 

Intelligence, Jr. Ed. Psychol., 191 1, 2. 
Descoeudres, A., Equete sur 1'evaluation subjective des quelques 

tests Binet et Simon, Archives de psychologie, 191 7, 16. 
Dewey, John, Duality and Dualism, Jr. Philos. Psychol., etc., 

1917, 14. 
, Imitation, Encyclopedia of Education (Monroe), 

Macmillan, 191 1. 
, The Reflex Arc Concept in Psychology, Psyc. Rev., 

1^93, 3- 
, How We Think, Heath, 1910. 

Doll, E. A., A Brief Binet Scale, Psyc. Clinic, 191 7, n. 

. . , Anthropometry as an Aid to Mental Diagnosis, Vine- 
land, N. J., 1916. 

, The Interpretation of Anthropometric Measurements, 

Jr. Psycho- Aesthenics, 191 5, 20. 

Downey, J. E., Standardized Tests and Mental Inheritance, Jr. 
Hered., 1918, 9. 

Dunlap, K., An Outline of Psychobiology, Johns Hopkins 
Press, 1917. 

Ebbinghaus, Ueber eine neue Methode zur Priifung geistigen 
fahigkeiten, etc., Zeitschrift fur Psychologie, 1897, 13. 

Esquirol, Des Malades mentales, II, p. 340. 

Fabre, F. H., The Wonders of Instinct, London, 1918. 

Fernald, Guy C, An Achievement Capacity Test, Jr. Ed. Psyc, 
1 912, June. 

Franz, S. I., Handbook of Mental Examination Methods, Jr. 
Neur. and Mental Diseases Pub. Co., 1912. 

Fisher, S. C, The Process of Generalizing Abstraction and Its 
Product the General Concept, Psyc. Mon., 1916, 21. 

Galton, Head Growth in Students at the University of Cam- 
bridge, Nature, 1888, 38; 1889, 40. 

, Cambridge Anthropometry, Nature, 1890, 41. 

Gilbert, Researches on Mental and Physical Development of 
School Children, Yale Psychological Studies, 1894, 2. 

, Researches upon Children and College Students, Uni- 
versity of Iowa, 1897, 1. 

Goddard, H. H., Psychology of the Normal and Subnormal, 
Dodd, Mead and Co., 1919. 

, The Binet and Simon Tests, 1905 Series, Vineland, 

1908. 

, Measuring Scale of Intelligence, Vineland, Jan., 

1910. 



ii2 JAMES LEROY STOCKTON 

Goddard, H. H., Four Hundred Feeble-minded Children Classi- 
fied by the Binet Method, Ped. Sem., 1910, 17. 

, The Revision of the Binet-Simon Scale, Vineland, 

1911. 

, The Form Board as a Measure of Intellectual Devel- 
opment in Children, Training School Bulletin, 1912, 9. 

, Standard Methods of Scoring Binet Tests, Vineland, 

April, 1913. 

, The Reliability of the Binet-Simon Measuring Scale 

of Intelligence, Proc. Fourth International Congress of 
School Hygiene, 19 13, 5. 

......... Two Thousand Normal Children Measured by the 

Binet Measuring Scale of Intelligence, Ped. Sem., 191 1, 18. 

— Gray, W. S., Descriptive List of Standard Tests, Elementary 

School Journal, 1916, Sept. 

Groos, The Play of Animals, Chapman and Hall, 1898. 

Groszmann, M. P. E., The Individual Child, Scribners, 191 7. 

Hall, G. Stanley, The Founders of American Psychology, Apple- 
ton, 1912. 

, Adolescence, Appleton, 1904. 

Hachet, Souplet P., La Genese des instincts, Paris, 1912. 

Hart and Spearman, General Ability; its Existence and Nature, 
Br. Jr. Psychol., 1912, 5. 

Healy, William A., Pictorial Completion Test, Psychol. Rev., 
1914, 21. 

, The Individual Delinquent, N. Y., Little Brown, 

1915. 
Healy and Fernald, Tests for Practical Mental Classification, 

Psyc. Mon., 191 1, 54. 

Herrick, C. Judson, An Introduction to Neurology, Saunders, 

I9I5- 

— Holmes (etc.), Descriptive Bibliography of Measurement in Ele- 

mentary Subjects, Harvard Bulletin, 191 7. 

— Honingswald, R., Principien der Denkpsychologie, Kant. Stud., 

1913-8. 

Hough, The Classification of Nervous Reactions, Science, N. S., 

XLI. 
Huey, E. B., The Psychology and Pedagogy of Reading, N. Y., 

1908. 
, Backward and Feebleminded Children, Baltimore, 

Warwick and York, 19 12. 
James, William, Psychology, Holt, 1890. 



MODERN METHODS OF MENTAL MEASUREMENT 113 

Jennings, H. S., The Behavior of the Lower Organisms, N. Y., 
1906. 

Johnson, W. E., Analysis of Thinking, Mind, 1918, 27. 

Klemm, Otto, A History of Psychology, Scribner, 19 14. 

Kohs, S. C, The Stanford (191 5) and the Vineland (1911) Re- 
visions of the Binet Scale, Psyc. Rev., 191 7, 24. 

, The Binet-Simon Measuring Scale for Intelligence, 

an Annotated Bibliography, Jr. Ed. Psychol., 1914, 5. 

Knox, H. A., A Scale Based Upon the Work at Ellis Island, Jr. 
Am. Med. Asso., March, 1914. 

Kuhlman, F., A reply to Dr. L. P. Ayres, etc., Jr. Psycho- 
Aesthenics, 191 1, 16. 

, Binet and Simon Method for Measuring Intelligence 

of Children, Jr. Psycho-Aesthenics, 191 1, 15. 

, Some Results of Examining 1000 Public School Chil- 
dren with a Revision of Binet-Simon Tests of Intelligence 
by Untrained Teachers, Jr. Psycho-Aesthenics, 19 14, 18. 

, The Binet and Simon Tests of Intelligence in Grad- 
ing Feebleminded Children, Jr. Psycho-Aesthenics, 1912, 16. 

, A Revision of the Binet-Simon Scale for Measuring 

Intelligence of Children, Mon. Sup. Jr. Psycho-Aesthenics, 
Sept. 1912. 

, A Further Extension and Revision of the Binet- 
Simon Scale, Jr. Criminal Law, 191 8, 8. 

, What Constitutes Feeblemindedness, Jr. Psycho- 
Aesthenics, 191 5, 19. 

Kulpe, Outlines of Psychology. 

Ladd, Psychology, Descriptive and Explanatory, Scribners, 1909. 

Ladd and Woodworth, Elements of Physiological Psychology, 
Scribners, 191 1. 

Lange, K., Ueber Apperzeption, Leipzig, 19 12. 

Lashley, K. S., Recent Literature on Animal Behavior, Psyc. 
Bui., 1914, 11. 

Lindley, A Study of Puzzles, Am. Jr. Psychol., 8. 

Lillie, R. S., What is Purposive and Intelligent Behavior, Jr. 
Phil. Psychol., etc., 191 5, 12. 

Lloyd, A. H., Psychophysical Parallelism, Jr. Phil. Psychol., etc., 
1917, 14. 

Loeb, J., Comparative Physiology of the Brain and Comparative 
Psychology, N. Y., 1900. 

......... Concerning the Theory of Tropisms, Jr. Exper. 

Zool., 151, 4. 



ii4 JAMES LEROY STOCKTON 

Loeb, J., The Mechanistic Conception of Life, Chicago, 1912. 

, The Organism as a Whole from a Psychochemical 

Viewpoint, Putnam, 191 6. 
McKenzie, J. S., Laws of Thought, Mind, n. s. 1916, 25. 
McMurry, F. M., How to Study, Houghton Mifflin, 1909. 
Marbe, K., Zur Psychologie des Denkens, Fortsc. d. Psychologie, 

1914, 3- 
Marratt, R. T., Anthropology and University Education, Rep. 

Brit. Asso. Adv. Sc, 191 6. 
Marshall, H. R., The Relation of Instinct and Intelligence, Br. 

Jr. Psychol., 1912, 5. 
Mead, The Relations of General Intelligence to Certain Mental 

and Physical Traits, N. Y., Teachers College, 1916. 
Meumann, Vorlesungen, Leipsig, 1907. 
Morgan, Animal Behavior, Longmans, 1900. 
National Society for Scientfic Study of Education, Material on 

Standard Tests: 15th and 17th Year Books. 
Netschajeff, A New Method for the Investigation of Intelligence, 

Jr. Exper. Ped., 191 7, 4. 
Norsworthy, Naomi, The Psychology of Mentally Deficient 

Children, N. Y., Teachers College, 1906. 
Otis, A. S., Some Logical Aspects of the Binet Scale, Psyc. Rev., 

1916, 23. 
, A Criticism of the Yerkes-Bridges Point Scale, Jr. 

Ed. Psychol., 191 7, 8. 
, An Absolute Point Scale for the Measurement of 

Intelligence in Groups, Jr. Ed. Psychol., 19 18, 9. 
Parker, G. H., Locomotion of Sea Anemones, Proc. Nat. Acad. 

Sci., 1916, 2. 
Paulsen, Introduction to Philosophy, Holt, 1904. 
Pearse and White, Recent Literature on Tropisms and Instinc- 
tive Activities, Psyc. Bui., 191 5, 12. 
Pearson, Karl, Grammar of Science, London, 1900. 
— Peterson, H. A., The Generalizing Ability of Children, Jr. Ed. 

Psychol., 19 1 4, 5. 
Pillsbury, Attention, 1908. 
Pintner, R., The Standardization of the Knox Cube Test, Psy. 

Rev., XXII, 1915, 5. 
Pintner and Patterson, A Scale of Performance Tests, Appleton, 

1917. 
Plate, L., Beobachtungen an den denkenden Pferden des Herrn 

Krall, Naturwiss Woch., 1913, 28. 



MODERN METHODS OF MENTAL MEASUREMENT 115 

Porter, The Growth of St. Louis Children, Trans. Acad. Sci., 
1894, 6. 

Porteus, D. D., Mental Tests for Feebleminded : a New Series, 
Jr. Psycho-Aesthenics, 1915, 19. 

, The Measurement of Intelligence: 653 children ex- 
amined by the Binet and Porteus Tests, Jr. Ed. Psychol., 
1918, 9. 

Pressey, S. L., and L. W., A Group Scale for Measuring Gen- 
eral Intelligence, Jr. Applied Psychology, 191 8, 2. 

Pyle, W. H., A Manual for the Mental and Physical Examina- 
tion of School Children Univ. Mo., 1916, 17. 

Quetelet, Anthropometric, Brussels, 1871. 

Rabinovitsch, S., Resulte der experimentellen Untersuchung von 
Kindern nach der kurtzen Methode von Rossilimo, Zsch. f. 
angewande Psychologie, 19 18, 13. 

Radl, E., Untersuchungen uber die Phototropismus der Tiere, 
Leipsig. 

Romanes, G. J., Mind and Motion, Longmans, 1895. 

RosanofT, Martin, and RosanofT, A Higher Scale of Mental 
Measurement, Psyc. Mon., 19 18, 25. 

Rosenow, C, The Analysis of Mental Functions, Psyc. Mon., 
1917, 24. 

Rossilimo, G., Mental Profiles, Jr. Exper. Ped., 1912. 

Ruediger, W. C, Thought and the Higher Mental Processes, 
Psyc. Bui., 1918, 15. 

Ruger, A. J., The Psychology of Efficiency, Archives of Psychol., 
1910, 15. 

Rugg, H. O., Experimental Determination of Mental Discipline, 
Warwick and York, 19 16; contains Bibliographies on the 
Subject. 

Sackett, L. W., The Canada Porcupine, a Study of the Learning 
Process, Animal Behavior Monographs, 19 13, 2, No. 2. 

Sellers, R. W., An Approach to the Mind-Body Problem, Philo- 
sophic Review, 1918, 27. 

Shepherd, J. F., Habit Formation and Higher Mental Capacities 
in Animals, Psyc. Bui., 1917, 14. 

Sherrington, The Integrative Action of the Nervous System, 
N. Y., 1906. 

Simon, Recherches cephalometriques sur les.enfants arrieres de 
la Colonie de Vaucluse, L'Annee psychologique, 1900, 7. 

Simpson, B. R., Correlations of Mental Abilities, N. Y., Teachers 
College, 19 1 2. 



u6 JAMES LEROY STOCKTON 

Smedley, Annual Report to Board of Ed., Chicago, 1900-01; 
Also Com. Ed. Report, 1902, Vol. I. 

Smith, E. M., The Investigation of the Minds of Animals, Cam- 
bridge University Press, 191 5. 

Sollier, Paul, Psychologie de l'idiot et de l'imbecile, Paris, 1901. 

Spearman, C, General Intelligence Objectively Determined and 
Measured, Am. Jr. Psychol., 1904, 15. 

Stern, William, The Psychological Methods of Testing Intelli- 
gence, (Tr. Whipple) Warwick and York, 191 3. 

Stratton, G. M., Experimental Psychology and Its Bearing Upon 
Culture, Macmillan, 1903. 

Terman, L. M., Review of Meumann on Tests of Endowment, Jr. 
Psycho- Aesthenics, 1913, 5. 

, Suggestions for Revising, Extending, and Suplement- 

ing the Binet Intelligence Tests, Jr. Psycho-Aesthenics, 191 3, 
18. 

, Psychological Principles Underlying the Binet-Simon 

Tests, and Some Practical Considerations for its Correct 
Use, Jr. Psycho-Aesthenics, 191 3, 18. 

, Genius and Stupidity, Ped. Sem., 1906, 13. 

, The Measurement of Intelligence, Houghton Mifflin, 

1916. 

......... The Vocabulary Test as a Measure of Intelligence, 

Jr. Ed. Psychol., 1918, 9. 

, The Intelligence of Children, Houghton Mifflin, 1919. 

Terman and Chamberlain, Twenty-three Serial Tests of Intelli- 
gence, etc., Jr. Applied Pspchol., 19 18, 2. 

Terman and Others. Stanford Revision Monograph, Warwick 
and York, 191 6. 

Thorndike, E. L., Educational Psychology, Columbia University 
Press, 1913. 

, Animal Behavior, Macmillan, 191 1. 

Thompson, E. L., An Analysis of the Learning Process in the 
Snail, Behavior Monographs, 191 7, 3. 

Titchener, E. B., The Psychology of Feeling and Attention, Mac- 
millan, 1908. 

, Description vs. Statement of Meaning, Am. Jr. 

Psychol., 1912, 23. 

, Experimental Psychology, N. Y., 1901. 

Torrey, H. B., Tropisms and Instinctive Activities, Psyc. Bui., 
1917, 14. 

Trabue, M. R., Completion Test Language Scale, N. Y., Teach- 
ers College, 1916, 77. 



MODERN METHODS OF MENTAL MEASUREMENT 117 

Trebitsch, A., Die Sinn und das Denkin, Arch. f. syst. Phil., 
1913, 19. 

Tredgold, Mental Deficiency, London, 19 14. 

Trobridge, C. C, The Origin of the Flocking Habits of Migra- 
tory Birds, Pop. Sci. Monthly, 1914, 84. 

Turner, C. H., The Locomotions of Surface-breeding caterpillars 
are not Tropisms, Biol. Bui., 1918, 34. 

Tyndall, Fragments of Science, N. Y., 1874. 

U. S. Surgeon General, Examiner's Guide for Psychological Ex- 
amining in the Army, Washington, 1918. 

Vervorn, M., General Physiology, London, 1899. 

Veschide et Pelletier, Recherches sur les signes physiques de 
1'intelligence, Revue philosophique, 1903, 4. 

Vincent, S. B., Literature for 191 5 on the Behavior of Verte- 
brates, Jr. Animal Behavior, 19 16, 6. 

Warren, H. C., The Mechanics of Intelligence, Philos. Rev., 1917, 
26. 

Washburn, M. F., Tropisms and Instinctive Activities, Psyc. Bui., 
1918, 15. 

, The Animal Mind, Macmillan, 1908. 

Watson, J. B., Homing and Related Activities of Birds, Carnegie 
Institution, 191 5. 

, Behavior, an Introduction to Comparative Psychol- 
ogy, Holt, 19 14. 

, Psychology from the Standpoint of a Behaviorist, 

Lippincott, 19 19. 

, An Attempted Formulation of the Scope of Behavior- 

istic Psychology, Psyc. Rev., 191 7, 24. 

Weeks, A. D., The Crisis Factor in Thinking, Am. Jr. Soc, 
1914, 19. 

Weiss, A. P., Relation Between Functional and Behavior Psychol- 
ogy, Psyc. Rev., 19 17, 24. 

, Relation Between Structural and Behavior Psychol- 
ogy, Psyc. Rev., 19 17, 24. 

Wigge, C, Das Problem der krallschen Pferde, Dusseldorf, 

I9i3 : 
Winch, Binet's Mental Tests, Childstudy, London, 1913, 16. 
Wissler, C, Correlation of Mental and Physical Tests, Psyc. 

Mon. 1901, 3. 
Woodworth, Dynamic Psychology, Columbia Univ. Press, 19 16. 
Woodworth and Wells, Association Tests, Psyc. Mon., 191 1, 5. 



n8 JAMES LEROY STOCKTON 

Wooley, Helen T., A New Scale of Mental and Physical Measure- 
ments for Adolescents, Jr. Ed. Psychol., 1915, 6. 

Wundt, Grundriss der Psychologic, 1905. 

......... Menschen und Thierseele. 

, Grundziige der physiologische Psychologie, 1887. 

, Volkerpsychologie, 1900. 

Wyatt, S., Quantitative Investigation of Higher Mental Pro- 
cesses, Br. Jr. Psychol., 191 3, 6. 

Yerkes, R., Behaviorism and Genetic Psychology, Jr. Philos. 
Psychol., etc., 191 7, 14. 

, Objective Nomenclature, Comparative Psychology, 

and Animal Behavior, Jr. Comp. Neurology, 16, 380. 

, The Dancing Mouse, Macmillan, 1907. 

Yerkes, Bridges, and Hardwick, A Point Scale for Measuring 
Intelligence, Warwick and York, 19 14. 

Yerkes and Yerkes, Individuality, Temperament, and Genius in 
Animals, Am. Mus. Jr., 1917, 17. 

Ziehen, Die Principien und Methoden der Intelligenzpriifung, 
Berlin, 1919.